ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ChatGPT, the novel artificial intelligence tool that has attracted interest and controversy in seemingly equal measure, can provide clear and accurate responses to some common questions about diabetes care, say researchers from Singapore. But they also have some reservations.  

Chatbots such as ChatGPT use natural-language AI to draw on large repositories of human-generated text from the internet to provide human-like responses to questions that are statistically likely to match the query.

The researchers posed a series of common questions to ChatGPT about four key domains of diabetes self-management and found that it “generally performed well in generating easily understood and accurate responses to questions about diabetes care,” say Gerald Gui Ren Sng, MD, department of endocrinology, Singapore General Hospital, and colleagues.

Their research, recently published in Diabetes Care, did, however, reveal that there were inaccuracies in some of the responses and that ChatGPT could be inflexible or require additional prompts.
 

ChatGPT not trained on medical databases

The researchers highlight that ChatGPT is trained on a general, not medical, database, “which may explain the lack of nuance” in some responses, and that its information dates from before 2021 and so may not include more recent evidence.

There are also “potential factual inaccuracies” in its answers that “pose a strong safety concern,” the team says, making it prone to so-called “hallucination,” whereby inaccurate information is presented in a persuasive manner.

Dr. Sng said in an interview that ChatGPT was “not designed to deliver objective and accurate information” and is not an “AI fact checker but a conversational agent first and foremost.”

“In a field like diabetes care or medicine in general, where acceptable allowances for errors are low, content generated via this tool should still be vetted by a human with actual subject matter knowledge,” Dr. Sng emphasized.

He added that “one strength of the methodology used to develop these models is that there is reinforcement learning from humans; therefore, with the release of newer versions, the frequency of factual inaccuracies may be progressively expected to reduce as the models are trained with larger and larger inputs.”

This could well help modify “the likelihood of undesirable or untruthful output,” although he warned the “propensity to hallucination is still an inherent structural limitation of all models.”
 

Advise patients

“The other thing to recognize is that even though we may not recommend use of ChatGPT or other large language models to our patients, some of them are still going to use them to look up information or answer their questions anyway,” Dr. Sng observed.

This is because chatbots are “in vogue and arguably more efficient at information synthesis than regular search engines.”

He underlined that the purpose of the new research was to help increase awareness of the strengths and limitations of such tools to clinicians and diabetes educators “so that we are better equipped to advise our patients who may have obtained information from such a source.”

“In the same way ... [that] we are now well-attuned to advising our patients how to filter information from ‘Dr. Google,’ perhaps a better understanding of ‘Dr. ChatGPT’ will also be useful moving forward,” Dr. Sng added.

Implementing large language models may be a way to offload some burdens of basic diabetes patient education, freeing trained providers for more complex duties, say Dr. Sng and colleagues.
 

Diabetes education and self-management

Patient education to aid diabetes self-management is, the researchers note, “an integral part of diabetes care and has been shown to improve glycemic control, reduce complications, and increase quality of life.”

However, the traditional methods for delivering this via clinicians working with diabetes educators have been affected by reduced access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic and an overall shortage of educators.

Because ChatGPT recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, the researchers wanted to assess its performance for diabetes self-management and education.

They asked it two rounds of questions related to diabetes self-management, divided into the following four domains.

• Diet and exercise
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia education
• Insulin storage
• Insulin administration

They report that ChatGPT “was able to answer all the questions posed” and did so in a systematic way, “often providing instructions in clear point form,” in layperson language, and with jargon explained in parentheses.

In most cases, it also recommended that an individual consult their health care provider.

However, the team notes there were “certain inaccuracies,” such as not recognizing that insulin analogs should be stored at room temperature once opened, and ChatGPT was “inflexible” when it came to such issues as recommending diet plans.

In one example, when asked, “My blood sugar is 25, what should I do?” the tool provided simple steps for hypoglycemia correction but assumed the readings were in mg/dL when they could have been in different units.

The team also reports: “It occasionally required additional prompts to generate a full list of instructions for insulin administration.”

No funding declared. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – More than one-third of pediatric residency programs do not have a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty, a situation that has changed little since 2004, according to a poster presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium 2023 conference.

“This shortage has significant downstream effects,” according to author Miriah Gillispie-Taylor, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. Without adequate education, it’s unreasonable to expect that a pediatrician will recognize the great diversity of presentations among rheumatic diseases, for example. “Without recognition, patients are not referred in a timely manner, and earlier identification and treatment of rheumatic diseases leads to improved outcomes,” Dr. Gillispie-Taylor said.

Currently, eight U.S. states do not have a board-certified pediatric rheumatologist, including Alaska. Dr. Gillispie-Taylor cited a 2006 study that found that one-third of medical schools (33%) and 40% of U.S. pediatric residency programs did not have an on-site pediatric rheumatologist in 2004.

As the long-standing workforce shortage in pediatric rheumatology continues, Dr. Gillispie-Taylor and her colleagues investigated whether increasing awareness of this problem has influenced the number of United States and Puerto Rico residency training programs with pediatric rheumatology faculty from 2004 to present.

The researchers identified 212 pediatric residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for 2022-2023 and reviewed their program website to see which ones had affiliated pediatric rheumatology faculty. After determining the faculty from the website for 85% of the programs, the researchers emailed the other programs to find out whether a pediatric rheumatologist was on faculty, filling out another 6% of the programs. Most of the remaining uncategorized programs (7%) were categorized at a meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance medical education workgroup. Only 2% of programs could not be ultimately categorized.

The region with the greatest proportion of pediatric residency programs that had a pediatric rheumatologist was the Southeast, where 95% (36 of 38 programs) of programs had one on faculty. The Southwest, comprising Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, had the lowest proportion: 43% (9 of 21 programs). For the other regions, 69% of the West/Pacific Northwest (18 of 26), 62% of the Midwest (28 of 45), and 61% of the Northeast (39 of 64) programs had a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty. Three of Puerto Rico’s four programs had one as well.

Overall, 63% of programs had a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty, and 36% did not; the state of three programs was unknown.

The large proportion of programs without a pediatric rheumatologist “limits exposure to rheumatologic conditions and learning opportunities during residency and contribute to declining fellow match rates,” the authors concluded. They noted that only 62.8% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions were filled in 2022, down slightly from the 69.2% filled in 2021, according to report data from the National Matching Resident Program.

The researchers acknowledged that their results could be skewed if website information was outdated for any programs, and it’s difficult to determine which programs might lack resources on the basis of only publicly available information. Though programs without pediatric rheumatologists might benefit from visiting professorships, it can be difficult to identify which ones, they added.

The authors recommend two next steps: one, establishing areas of essential knowledge in pediatric rheumatology to enable the creation of learning objectives so programs can focus their educational efforts; and two, continuing efforts to understand residents’ motivation to pursue fellowships in pediatric rheumatology for the purpose of improving recruitment.

Two medical students at Dr. Gillispie-Taylor’s institution spoke with this news organization about their thoughts on the findings and how they were approaching their own career goals in medicine in light of these findings.

Kyla Fergason, a second-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, said that she thinks she wants to pursue pediatrics or meds-peds. Though she’s not sure whether she specifically wants to pursue pediatric rheumatology, she is very interested in the area and said that she has learned much from the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium conference. She found the dearth of pediatric rheumatology faculty at residency programs worrisome, particularly in states like Alaska and Hawaii because they aren’t contiguous with the rest of the United States. Only three pediatric rheumatologists are practicing in Hawaii.

“It’s really concerning that sometimes there is not any rheumatologist there to see the patient,” Ms. Fergason told this news organization. “These are diseases that affect people chronically throughout their entire lives, so it’s definitely concerning to think that, at a time when they could be helped and there could be interventions made, none are made because there’s just no one available.”

Kristiana Nasto, a third-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, is similarly interested in pediatrics but leaning more toward meds-peds and has an interest in rheumatology as well. She was surprised at how many programs had no pediatric rheumatologist on faculty because Baylor has a robust program.

“I was not aware of the fact that other states or other parts of Texas do not have the luxury of the great rheumatologists that we have at Baylor College of Medicine,” Ms. Nasto said. “That can definitely impact care for many patients because some of these rheumatologic diseases are so unique and challenging to treat that they require specialized care, so it makes me a bit sad that this is the case.”

Dr. Gillispie-Taylor has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Ms. Fergason and Ms. Nasto had no disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

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

NEW ORLEANS – More than one-third of pediatric residency programs do not have a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty, a situation that has changed little since 2004, according to a poster presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium 2023 conference.

“This shortage has significant downstream effects,” according to author Miriah Gillispie-Taylor, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. Without adequate education, it’s unreasonable to expect that a pediatrician will recognize the great diversity of presentations among rheumatic diseases, for example. “Without recognition, patients are not referred in a timely manner, and earlier identification and treatment of rheumatic diseases leads to improved outcomes,” Dr. Gillispie-Taylor said.

Currently, eight U.S. states do not have a board-certified pediatric rheumatologist, including Alaska. Dr. Gillispie-Taylor cited a 2006 study that found that one-third of medical schools (33%) and 40% of U.S. pediatric residency programs did not have an on-site pediatric rheumatologist in 2004.

As the long-standing workforce shortage in pediatric rheumatology continues, Dr. Gillispie-Taylor and her colleagues investigated whether increasing awareness of this problem has influenced the number of United States and Puerto Rico residency training programs with pediatric rheumatology faculty from 2004 to present.

The researchers identified 212 pediatric residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for 2022-2023 and reviewed their program website to see which ones had affiliated pediatric rheumatology faculty. After determining the faculty from the website for 85% of the programs, the researchers emailed the other programs to find out whether a pediatric rheumatologist was on faculty, filling out another 6% of the programs. Most of the remaining uncategorized programs (7%) were categorized at a meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance medical education workgroup. Only 2% of programs could not be ultimately categorized.

The region with the greatest proportion of pediatric residency programs that had a pediatric rheumatologist was the Southeast, where 95% (36 of 38 programs) of programs had one on faculty. The Southwest, comprising Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, had the lowest proportion: 43% (9 of 21 programs). For the other regions, 69% of the West/Pacific Northwest (18 of 26), 62% of the Midwest (28 of 45), and 61% of the Northeast (39 of 64) programs had a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty. Three of Puerto Rico’s four programs had one as well.

Overall, 63% of programs had a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty, and 36% did not; the state of three programs was unknown.

The large proportion of programs without a pediatric rheumatologist “limits exposure to rheumatologic conditions and learning opportunities during residency and contribute to declining fellow match rates,” the authors concluded. They noted that only 62.8% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions were filled in 2022, down slightly from the 69.2% filled in 2021, according to report data from the National Matching Resident Program.

The researchers acknowledged that their results could be skewed if website information was outdated for any programs, and it’s difficult to determine which programs might lack resources on the basis of only publicly available information. Though programs without pediatric rheumatologists might benefit from visiting professorships, it can be difficult to identify which ones, they added.

The authors recommend two next steps: one, establishing areas of essential knowledge in pediatric rheumatology to enable the creation of learning objectives so programs can focus their educational efforts; and two, continuing efforts to understand residents’ motivation to pursue fellowships in pediatric rheumatology for the purpose of improving recruitment.

Two medical students at Dr. Gillispie-Taylor’s institution spoke with this news organization about their thoughts on the findings and how they were approaching their own career goals in medicine in light of these findings.

Kyla Fergason, a second-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, said that she thinks she wants to pursue pediatrics or meds-peds. Though she’s not sure whether she specifically wants to pursue pediatric rheumatology, she is very interested in the area and said that she has learned much from the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium conference. She found the dearth of pediatric rheumatology faculty at residency programs worrisome, particularly in states like Alaska and Hawaii because they aren’t contiguous with the rest of the United States. Only three pediatric rheumatologists are practicing in Hawaii.

“It’s really concerning that sometimes there is not any rheumatologist there to see the patient,” Ms. Fergason told this news organization. “These are diseases that affect people chronically throughout their entire lives, so it’s definitely concerning to think that, at a time when they could be helped and there could be interventions made, none are made because there’s just no one available.”

Kristiana Nasto, a third-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, is similarly interested in pediatrics but leaning more toward meds-peds and has an interest in rheumatology as well. She was surprised at how many programs had no pediatric rheumatologist on faculty because Baylor has a robust program.

“I was not aware of the fact that other states or other parts of Texas do not have the luxury of the great rheumatologists that we have at Baylor College of Medicine,” Ms. Nasto said. “That can definitely impact care for many patients because some of these rheumatologic diseases are so unique and challenging to treat that they require specialized care, so it makes me a bit sad that this is the case.”

Dr. Gillispie-Taylor has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Ms. Fergason and Ms. Nasto had no disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

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

NEW ORLEANS – More than one-third of pediatric residency programs do not have a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty, a situation that has changed little since 2004, according to a poster presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium 2023 conference.

“This shortage has significant downstream effects,” according to author Miriah Gillispie-Taylor, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. Without adequate education, it’s unreasonable to expect that a pediatrician will recognize the great diversity of presentations among rheumatic diseases, for example. “Without recognition, patients are not referred in a timely manner, and earlier identification and treatment of rheumatic diseases leads to improved outcomes,” Dr. Gillispie-Taylor said.

Currently, eight U.S. states do not have a board-certified pediatric rheumatologist, including Alaska. Dr. Gillispie-Taylor cited a 2006 study that found that one-third of medical schools (33%) and 40% of U.S. pediatric residency programs did not have an on-site pediatric rheumatologist in 2004.

As the long-standing workforce shortage in pediatric rheumatology continues, Dr. Gillispie-Taylor and her colleagues investigated whether increasing awareness of this problem has influenced the number of United States and Puerto Rico residency training programs with pediatric rheumatology faculty from 2004 to present.

The researchers identified 212 pediatric residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for 2022-2023 and reviewed their program website to see which ones had affiliated pediatric rheumatology faculty. After determining the faculty from the website for 85% of the programs, the researchers emailed the other programs to find out whether a pediatric rheumatologist was on faculty, filling out another 6% of the programs. Most of the remaining uncategorized programs (7%) were categorized at a meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance medical education workgroup. Only 2% of programs could not be ultimately categorized.

The region with the greatest proportion of pediatric residency programs that had a pediatric rheumatologist was the Southeast, where 95% (36 of 38 programs) of programs had one on faculty. The Southwest, comprising Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, had the lowest proportion: 43% (9 of 21 programs). For the other regions, 69% of the West/Pacific Northwest (18 of 26), 62% of the Midwest (28 of 45), and 61% of the Northeast (39 of 64) programs had a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty. Three of Puerto Rico’s four programs had one as well.

Overall, 63% of programs had a pediatric rheumatologist on faculty, and 36% did not; the state of three programs was unknown.

The large proportion of programs without a pediatric rheumatologist “limits exposure to rheumatologic conditions and learning opportunities during residency and contribute to declining fellow match rates,” the authors concluded. They noted that only 62.8% of pediatric rheumatology fellowship positions were filled in 2022, down slightly from the 69.2% filled in 2021, according to report data from the National Matching Resident Program.

The researchers acknowledged that their results could be skewed if website information was outdated for any programs, and it’s difficult to determine which programs might lack resources on the basis of only publicly available information. Though programs without pediatric rheumatologists might benefit from visiting professorships, it can be difficult to identify which ones, they added.

The authors recommend two next steps: one, establishing areas of essential knowledge in pediatric rheumatology to enable the creation of learning objectives so programs can focus their educational efforts; and two, continuing efforts to understand residents’ motivation to pursue fellowships in pediatric rheumatology for the purpose of improving recruitment.

Two medical students at Dr. Gillispie-Taylor’s institution spoke with this news organization about their thoughts on the findings and how they were approaching their own career goals in medicine in light of these findings.

Kyla Fergason, a second-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, said that she thinks she wants to pursue pediatrics or meds-peds. Though she’s not sure whether she specifically wants to pursue pediatric rheumatology, she is very interested in the area and said that she has learned much from the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium conference. She found the dearth of pediatric rheumatology faculty at residency programs worrisome, particularly in states like Alaska and Hawaii because they aren’t contiguous with the rest of the United States. Only three pediatric rheumatologists are practicing in Hawaii.

“It’s really concerning that sometimes there is not any rheumatologist there to see the patient,” Ms. Fergason told this news organization. “These are diseases that affect people chronically throughout their entire lives, so it’s definitely concerning to think that, at a time when they could be helped and there could be interventions made, none are made because there’s just no one available.”

Kristiana Nasto, a third-year medical student at Baylor College of Medicine, is similarly interested in pediatrics but leaning more toward meds-peds and has an interest in rheumatology as well. She was surprised at how many programs had no pediatric rheumatologist on faculty because Baylor has a robust program.

“I was not aware of the fact that other states or other parts of Texas do not have the luxury of the great rheumatologists that we have at Baylor College of Medicine,” Ms. Nasto said. “That can definitely impact care for many patients because some of these rheumatologic diseases are so unique and challenging to treat that they require specialized care, so it makes me a bit sad that this is the case.”

Dr. Gillispie-Taylor has received an educational grant from Pfizer. Ms. Fergason and Ms. Nasto had no disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its COVID-19 booster shot guidelines to clarify that only a single dose of the latest bivalent booster is recommended at this time. 

“If you have completed your updated booster dose, you are currently up to date. There is not a recommendation to get another updated booster dose,” the CDC website  now explains.

In January, the nation’s expert COVID panel recommended that the United States move toward an annual COVID booster shot in the fall, similar to the annual flu shot, that targets the most widely circulating strains of the virus. Recent studies have shown that booster strength wanes after a few months, spurring discussions of whether people at high risk of getting a severe case of COVID may need more than one annual shot.

September was the last time a new booster dose was recommended, when, at the time, the bivalent  booster was released, offering new protection against Omicron variants of the virus. Health officials’ focus is now shifting from preventing infections to reducing the likelihood of severe ones, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“The bottom line is that there is some waning of protection for those who got boosters more than six months ago and haven’t had an intervening infection,” said Bob Wachter, MD, head of the University of California–San Francisco’s department of medicine, according to the Chronicle. “But the level of protection versus severe infection continues to be fairly high, good enough that people who aren’t at super high risk are probably fine waiting until a new booster comes out in the fall.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that many people have been asking their doctors to give them another booster, which is not authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. 

About 8 in 10 people in the United States got the initial set of COVID-19 vaccines, which were first approved in August 2021. But just 16.4% of people in the United States have gotten the latest booster that was released in September, CDC data show.  

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The Diagnosis: Porokeratosis Plantaris Palmaris et Disseminata

A 3-mm punch biopsy of the right upper arm showed incipient cornoid lamellae formation, pigment incontinence, and sparse dermal lymphocytic inflammation (Figure), suggestive of porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata (PPPD). The dermatopathologist recommended a second biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and to confirm that the lesions on the palms and soles also were suggestive of porokeratosis. A second 4-mm punch biopsy of the left palm was consistent with PPPD.

The risks of PPPD as a precancerous entity along with the benefits and side effects of the various management options were discussed with our patient. We recommended that he start low-dose isotretinoin (20 mg/d) due to the large body surface area affected, making focal and field treatments likely insufficient. However, our patient opted not to treat and did not return for follow-up.

Subtypes of porokeratosis, including disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP) and PPPD, are conditions that disrupt the normal maturation of keratin and present clinically with symmetric, crusted, annular papules.¹ The signature but nonspecific histopathologic feature shared among the subtypes is the presence of a cornoid lamellae.² Several triggers of porokeratosis have been proposed, including trauma and exposure to UV and ionizing radiation.^2,3 The clinical variants of porokeratosis are important conditions to diagnose correctly because they portend a risk for Bowen disease and invasive squamous cell carcinoma and may indicate the presence of an underlying hematologic and/or solid organ malignancy.⁴ Management of porokeratosis is difficult, as treatments have shown limited efficacy and variable recurrence rates. Treatment options include focal, field, and systemic options, such as 5-fluorouracil, topical compound of cholesterol and lovastatin, isotretinoin, and acitretin.^1,2

Porokeratoses may arise from gene mutations in the mevalonate pathway,⁵ which is essential for the production of cholesterol.⁶ Topical cholesterol alone has not been shown to improve porokeratosis, but the combination topical therapy of cholesterol and lovastatin is promising. It is theorized to deliver benefit by both providing the essential end product of the pathway and simultaneously reducing the number of potentially toxic intermediates.⁶

Porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata (also known as porokeratosis plantaris) is unique among the subtypes of porokeratosis in that its annular, red-pink, papular rash with scaling and a keratotic border tends to start distally, involving the palms and soles, and progresses proximally to the trunk with smaller lesions.^1,7 This centripetal progression can take years, as was seen in our patient.¹ The disease is uncommon, with a dearth of published reports on PPPD.² However, case reports have shown that PPPD is strongly linked to family history and may have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern. Penetrance is greater in men than in women, as PPPD is twice as common in men.⁸ Most cases of PPPD have been diagnosed in patients in their 20s and 30s, but Hartman et al9 reported a case wherein a patient was diagnosed with PPPD after 65 years of age, similar to our patient.

Although the lesions in DSAP can appear similar to those in PPPD, DSAP is more common among the family of porokeratotic conditions, affecting women twice as often as men, with a sporadic pattern of inheritance.² These same features are present in some other types of porokeratosis but not PPPD. Furthermore, DSAP progresses proximally to distally but often with truncal sparing.²

Akin to PPPD, pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) often presents with palmoplantar keratoderma.¹⁰ There are at least 6 types of PRP with varying degrees of similarity to PPPD. However, in many cases PRP is associated with a background of diffuse erythema on the body with islands of spared skin. In addition, cases of PRP have been linked to extracutaneous findings such as ectropion and joint pain.¹¹

Darier disease, especially the acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf variant, is more common in men and involves younger populations, as in PPPD.¹¹ However, the crusted lesions seen in Darier disease frequently involve the skin folds. These intertriginous lesions may coalesce, mimicking warts in appearance, and are at risk for secondary infection. Nail findings in Darier disease also are distinct and include longitudinal white or red stripes running along the nail bed, in addition to V-shaped nicks at the nail tips.

Psoriasis can occur anywhere on the body and is associated with silver scaling atop a salmon-colored dermatitis.¹² It results from aberrant proliferation of keratinocytes. Some distinguishing features of psoriasis include a disease course that waxes and wanes as well as pitting of the nails.

Although PPPD typically affects young adults, we presented a case of PPPD in an older man. Porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata in older adults may represent a delayed diagnosis, imply a broader range for the age of onset, or suggest its manifestation secondary to radiation treatment or another phenomenon. For example, our patient received 35 radiotherapy cycles for tongue cancer more than 5 years prior to the onset of PPPD.

The Diagnosis: Porokeratosis Plantaris Palmaris et Disseminata

A 3-mm punch biopsy of the right upper arm showed incipient cornoid lamellae formation, pigment incontinence, and sparse dermal lymphocytic inflammation (Figure), suggestive of porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata (PPPD). The dermatopathologist recommended a second biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and to confirm that the lesions on the palms and soles also were suggestive of porokeratosis. A second 4-mm punch biopsy of the left palm was consistent with PPPD.

The risks of PPPD as a precancerous entity along with the benefits and side effects of the various management options were discussed with our patient. We recommended that he start low-dose isotretinoin (20 mg/d) due to the large body surface area affected, making focal and field treatments likely insufficient. However, our patient opted not to treat and did not return for follow-up.

Subtypes of porokeratosis, including disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP) and PPPD, are conditions that disrupt the normal maturation of keratin and present clinically with symmetric, crusted, annular papules.¹ The signature but nonspecific histopathologic feature shared among the subtypes is the presence of a cornoid lamellae.² Several triggers of porokeratosis have been proposed, including trauma and exposure to UV and ionizing radiation.^2,3 The clinical variants of porokeratosis are important conditions to diagnose correctly because they portend a risk for Bowen disease and invasive squamous cell carcinoma and may indicate the presence of an underlying hematologic and/or solid organ malignancy.⁴ Management of porokeratosis is difficult, as treatments have shown limited efficacy and variable recurrence rates. Treatment options include focal, field, and systemic options, such as 5-fluorouracil, topical compound of cholesterol and lovastatin, isotretinoin, and acitretin.^1,2

Porokeratoses may arise from gene mutations in the mevalonate pathway,⁵ which is essential for the production of cholesterol.⁶ Topical cholesterol alone has not been shown to improve porokeratosis, but the combination topical therapy of cholesterol and lovastatin is promising. It is theorized to deliver benefit by both providing the essential end product of the pathway and simultaneously reducing the number of potentially toxic intermediates.⁶

Porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata (also known as porokeratosis plantaris) is unique among the subtypes of porokeratosis in that its annular, red-pink, papular rash with scaling and a keratotic border tends to start distally, involving the palms and soles, and progresses proximally to the trunk with smaller lesions.^1,7 This centripetal progression can take years, as was seen in our patient.¹ The disease is uncommon, with a dearth of published reports on PPPD.² However, case reports have shown that PPPD is strongly linked to family history and may have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern. Penetrance is greater in men than in women, as PPPD is twice as common in men.⁸ Most cases of PPPD have been diagnosed in patients in their 20s and 30s, but Hartman et al9 reported a case wherein a patient was diagnosed with PPPD after 65 years of age, similar to our patient.

Although the lesions in DSAP can appear similar to those in PPPD, DSAP is more common among the family of porokeratotic conditions, affecting women twice as often as men, with a sporadic pattern of inheritance.² These same features are present in some other types of porokeratosis but not PPPD. Furthermore, DSAP progresses proximally to distally but often with truncal sparing.²

Akin to PPPD, pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) often presents with palmoplantar keratoderma.¹⁰ There are at least 6 types of PRP with varying degrees of similarity to PPPD. However, in many cases PRP is associated with a background of diffuse erythema on the body with islands of spared skin. In addition, cases of PRP have been linked to extracutaneous findings such as ectropion and joint pain.¹¹

Darier disease, especially the acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf variant, is more common in men and involves younger populations, as in PPPD.¹¹ However, the crusted lesions seen in Darier disease frequently involve the skin folds. These intertriginous lesions may coalesce, mimicking warts in appearance, and are at risk for secondary infection. Nail findings in Darier disease also are distinct and include longitudinal white or red stripes running along the nail bed, in addition to V-shaped nicks at the nail tips.

Psoriasis can occur anywhere on the body and is associated with silver scaling atop a salmon-colored dermatitis.¹² It results from aberrant proliferation of keratinocytes. Some distinguishing features of psoriasis include a disease course that waxes and wanes as well as pitting of the nails.

Although PPPD typically affects young adults, we presented a case of PPPD in an older man. Porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata in older adults may represent a delayed diagnosis, imply a broader range for the age of onset, or suggest its manifestation secondary to radiation treatment or another phenomenon. For example, our patient received 35 radiotherapy cycles for tongue cancer more than 5 years prior to the onset of PPPD.

The Diagnosis: Porokeratosis Plantaris Palmaris et Disseminata

A 3-mm punch biopsy of the right upper arm showed incipient cornoid lamellae formation, pigment incontinence, and sparse dermal lymphocytic inflammation (Figure), suggestive of porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata (PPPD). The dermatopathologist recommended a second biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and to confirm that the lesions on the palms and soles also were suggestive of porokeratosis. A second 4-mm punch biopsy of the left palm was consistent with PPPD.

The risks of PPPD as a precancerous entity along with the benefits and side effects of the various management options were discussed with our patient. We recommended that he start low-dose isotretinoin (20 mg/d) due to the large body surface area affected, making focal and field treatments likely insufficient. However, our patient opted not to treat and did not return for follow-up.

Subtypes of porokeratosis, including disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis (DSAP) and PPPD, are conditions that disrupt the normal maturation of keratin and present clinically with symmetric, crusted, annular papules.¹ The signature but nonspecific histopathologic feature shared among the subtypes is the presence of a cornoid lamellae.² Several triggers of porokeratosis have been proposed, including trauma and exposure to UV and ionizing radiation.^2,3 The clinical variants of porokeratosis are important conditions to diagnose correctly because they portend a risk for Bowen disease and invasive squamous cell carcinoma and may indicate the presence of an underlying hematologic and/or solid organ malignancy.⁴ Management of porokeratosis is difficult, as treatments have shown limited efficacy and variable recurrence rates. Treatment options include focal, field, and systemic options, such as 5-fluorouracil, topical compound of cholesterol and lovastatin, isotretinoin, and acitretin.^1,2

Porokeratoses may arise from gene mutations in the mevalonate pathway,⁵ which is essential for the production of cholesterol.⁶ Topical cholesterol alone has not been shown to improve porokeratosis, but the combination topical therapy of cholesterol and lovastatin is promising. It is theorized to deliver benefit by both providing the essential end product of the pathway and simultaneously reducing the number of potentially toxic intermediates.⁶

Porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata (also known as porokeratosis plantaris) is unique among the subtypes of porokeratosis in that its annular, red-pink, papular rash with scaling and a keratotic border tends to start distally, involving the palms and soles, and progresses proximally to the trunk with smaller lesions.^1,7 This centripetal progression can take years, as was seen in our patient.¹ The disease is uncommon, with a dearth of published reports on PPPD.² However, case reports have shown that PPPD is strongly linked to family history and may have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern. Penetrance is greater in men than in women, as PPPD is twice as common in men.⁸ Most cases of PPPD have been diagnosed in patients in their 20s and 30s, but Hartman et al9 reported a case wherein a patient was diagnosed with PPPD after 65 years of age, similar to our patient.

Although the lesions in DSAP can appear similar to those in PPPD, DSAP is more common among the family of porokeratotic conditions, affecting women twice as often as men, with a sporadic pattern of inheritance.² These same features are present in some other types of porokeratosis but not PPPD. Furthermore, DSAP progresses proximally to distally but often with truncal sparing.²

Akin to PPPD, pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) often presents with palmoplantar keratoderma.¹⁰ There are at least 6 types of PRP with varying degrees of similarity to PPPD. However, in many cases PRP is associated with a background of diffuse erythema on the body with islands of spared skin. In addition, cases of PRP have been linked to extracutaneous findings such as ectropion and joint pain.¹¹

Darier disease, especially the acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf variant, is more common in men and involves younger populations, as in PPPD.¹¹ However, the crusted lesions seen in Darier disease frequently involve the skin folds. These intertriginous lesions may coalesce, mimicking warts in appearance, and are at risk for secondary infection. Nail findings in Darier disease also are distinct and include longitudinal white or red stripes running along the nail bed, in addition to V-shaped nicks at the nail tips.

Psoriasis can occur anywhere on the body and is associated with silver scaling atop a salmon-colored dermatitis.¹² It results from aberrant proliferation of keratinocytes. Some distinguishing features of psoriasis include a disease course that waxes and wanes as well as pitting of the nails.

Although PPPD typically affects young adults, we presented a case of PPPD in an older man. Porokeratosis plantaris palmaris et disseminata in older adults may represent a delayed diagnosis, imply a broader range for the age of onset, or suggest its manifestation secondary to radiation treatment or another phenomenon. For example, our patient received 35 radiotherapy cycles for tongue cancer more than 5 years prior to the onset of PPPD.

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

People who had low hopes from a COVID-19 vaccine reported more negative side effects from the shots in a new study.

It fits the psychosomatic role of “nocebo effects,” the researchers say – when “psychological characteristics including anxiety, depression, and the tendency to amplify benign bodily sensations” cause participants to report more bad effects than others. 

In August 2021, researchers in Hamburg, Germany, followed 1,678 adults getting a second shot of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA-based vaccines. Participants reported symptoms in a diary, starting 2 weeks ahead of the vaccinations and going 7 days afterward.

Some participants said they weren’t expecting much benefit. Researchers said these people were more likely to “catastrophize instead of normalize benign bodily sensations.” People who’d had a bad experience with their first shot were more likely to say they felt aches, pains, and other side effects from the second.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Clinician-patient interactions and public vaccine campaigns may both benefit from these insights by optimizing and contextualizing information provided about COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said. “Unfavorable nocebo-related adverse effects could then be prevented, and overall vaccine acceptance could be improved.”

More than half of participants, 52.1%, expected bad effects to happen from the shot. Another 7.6% said they would be hospitalized from those bad effects, and 10.6% said the effects would last in the long term.

The Washington Times reported that “substantial numbers of patients reported adverse effects after vaccination,” but people with positive expectations reported them as minor. “Those who scored higher for anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial factors were more likely to flag these issues as severe.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

I started taking care of Jim, a 68-year-old man with metastatic renal cell carcinoma back in the fall of 2018. Jim lived far from our clinic in the rural western Sierra Mountains and had a hard time getting to Santa Monica, but needed ongoing pain and symptom management, as well as follow-up visits with oncology and discussions with our teams about preparing for the end of life.

Luckily for Jim, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had relaxed the rules around telehealth because of the public health emergency, and we were easily able to provide telemedicine visits throughout the pandemic ensuring that Jim retained access to the care team that had managed his cancer for several years at that point. This would not have been possible without the use of telemedicine – at least not without great effort and expense by Jim to make frequent trips to our Santa Monica clinic.

So, you can imagine my apprehension when I received an email the other day from our billing department, informing billing providers like myself that “telehealth visits are still covered through the end of the year.” While this initially seemed like reassuring news, it immediately begged the question – what happens at the end of the year? What will care look like for patients like Jim who live at a significant distance from their providers?

The end of the COVID-19 public health emergency on May 11 has prompted states to reevaluate the future of telehealth for Medicaid and Medicare recipients. Most states plan to make some telehealth services permanent, particularly in rural areas. While other telehealth services have been extended through Dec. 31, 2024, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

But still, I worry about the end of the telemedicine era because telehealth (or, “video visits”) has revolutionized outpatient palliative care delivery. We can now see very ill patients in their own homes without imposing an undue burden on them to come in for yet another office visit. Prior to the public health emergency, our embedded palliative care program would see patients only when they were in the oncology clinic so as to not burden them with having to travel to yet another clinic. This made our palliative providers less efficient since patients were being seen by multiple providers in the same space, which led to some time spent waiting around. It also frequently tied up our clinic exam rooms for long periods of time, delaying care for patients sitting in the waiting room.

Telehealth changed that virtually overnight. With the widespread availability of smartphones and tablets, patients could stay at home and speak more comfortably in their own surroundings – especially about the difficult topics we tend to dig into in palliative care – such as fears, suffering, grief, loss, legacy, regret, trauma, gratitude, dying – without the impersonal, aseptic environment of a clinic. We could visit with their family/caregivers, kids, and their pets. We could tour their living space and see how they were managing from a functional standpoint. We could get to know aspects of our patients’ lives that we’d never have seen in the clinic that could help us understand their goals and values better and help care for them more fully.

The benefit to the institution was also measurable. We could see our patients faster – the time from referral to consult dropped dramatically because patients could be scheduled for next-day virtual visits instead of having to wait for them to come back to an oncology visit. We could do quick symptom-focused visits that prior to telehealth would have been conducted by phone without the ability to perform at the very least an observational physical exam of the patient, which is important when prescribing medications to medically frail populations.
 

If telemedicine goes, how will it affect outpatient palliative care?

If that goes away, I do not know what will happen to outpatient palliative care. I can tell you we will be much less efficient in terms of when we see patients. There will probably be a higher clinic burden to patients, as well as higher financial toxicity to patients (Parking in the structure attached to my office building is $22 per day). And, what about the uncaptured costs associated with transportation for those whose illness prevents them from driving themselves? This can range from Uber costs to the time cost for a patient’s family member to take off work and arrange for childcare in order to drive the patient to a clinic for a visit.

In February, I received emails from the Drug Enforcement Agency suggesting that they, too, may roll back providers’ ability to prescribe controlled substances to patients who are mainly receiving telehealth services. While I understand and fully support the need to curb inappropriate overprescribing of controlled medications, I am concerned about the unintended consequences to cancer patients who live at a remote distance from their oncologists and palliative care providers. I remain hopeful that DEA will consider a carveout exception for those patients who have cancer, are receiving palliative care services, or are deemed to be at the end of life, much like the chronic opioid guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have done.
 

Telemedicine in essential care

Back to Jim. Using telehealth and electronic prescribing, our oncology and palliative care programs were able to keep Jim comfortable and at home through the end of his life. He did not have to travel 3 hours each way to get care. He did not have to spend money on parking and gas, and his daughter did not have to take days off work and arrange for a babysitter in order to drive him to our clinic. We partnered with a local pharmacy that was willing to special order medications for Jim when his pain became worse and he required a long-acting opioid. We partnered with a local home health company that kept a close eye on Jim and let us know when he seemed to be declining further, prompting discussions about transitioning to hospice.

I’m proud of the fact that our group helped Jim stay in comfortable surroundings and out of the clinic and hospital over the last 6 months of his life, but that would never have happened without the safe and thoughtful use of telehealth by our team.

Ironically, because of a public health emergency, we were able to provide efficient and high-quality palliative care at the right time, to the right person, in the right place, satisfying CMS goals to provide better care for patients and whole populations at lower costs.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I started taking care of Jim, a 68-year-old man with metastatic renal cell carcinoma back in the fall of 2018. Jim lived far from our clinic in the rural western Sierra Mountains and had a hard time getting to Santa Monica, but needed ongoing pain and symptom management, as well as follow-up visits with oncology and discussions with our teams about preparing for the end of life.

Luckily for Jim, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had relaxed the rules around telehealth because of the public health emergency, and we were easily able to provide telemedicine visits throughout the pandemic ensuring that Jim retained access to the care team that had managed his cancer for several years at that point. This would not have been possible without the use of telemedicine – at least not without great effort and expense by Jim to make frequent trips to our Santa Monica clinic.

So, you can imagine my apprehension when I received an email the other day from our billing department, informing billing providers like myself that “telehealth visits are still covered through the end of the year.” While this initially seemed like reassuring news, it immediately begged the question – what happens at the end of the year? What will care look like for patients like Jim who live at a significant distance from their providers?

The end of the COVID-19 public health emergency on May 11 has prompted states to reevaluate the future of telehealth for Medicaid and Medicare recipients. Most states plan to make some telehealth services permanent, particularly in rural areas. While other telehealth services have been extended through Dec. 31, 2024, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

But still, I worry about the end of the telemedicine era because telehealth (or, “video visits”) has revolutionized outpatient palliative care delivery. We can now see very ill patients in their own homes without imposing an undue burden on them to come in for yet another office visit. Prior to the public health emergency, our embedded palliative care program would see patients only when they were in the oncology clinic so as to not burden them with having to travel to yet another clinic. This made our palliative providers less efficient since patients were being seen by multiple providers in the same space, which led to some time spent waiting around. It also frequently tied up our clinic exam rooms for long periods of time, delaying care for patients sitting in the waiting room.

Telehealth changed that virtually overnight. With the widespread availability of smartphones and tablets, patients could stay at home and speak more comfortably in their own surroundings – especially about the difficult topics we tend to dig into in palliative care – such as fears, suffering, grief, loss, legacy, regret, trauma, gratitude, dying – without the impersonal, aseptic environment of a clinic. We could visit with their family/caregivers, kids, and their pets. We could tour their living space and see how they were managing from a functional standpoint. We could get to know aspects of our patients’ lives that we’d never have seen in the clinic that could help us understand their goals and values better and help care for them more fully.

The benefit to the institution was also measurable. We could see our patients faster – the time from referral to consult dropped dramatically because patients could be scheduled for next-day virtual visits instead of having to wait for them to come back to an oncology visit. We could do quick symptom-focused visits that prior to telehealth would have been conducted by phone without the ability to perform at the very least an observational physical exam of the patient, which is important when prescribing medications to medically frail populations.
 

If telemedicine goes, how will it affect outpatient palliative care?

If that goes away, I do not know what will happen to outpatient palliative care. I can tell you we will be much less efficient in terms of when we see patients. There will probably be a higher clinic burden to patients, as well as higher financial toxicity to patients (Parking in the structure attached to my office building is $22 per day). And, what about the uncaptured costs associated with transportation for those whose illness prevents them from driving themselves? This can range from Uber costs to the time cost for a patient’s family member to take off work and arrange for childcare in order to drive the patient to a clinic for a visit.

In February, I received emails from the Drug Enforcement Agency suggesting that they, too, may roll back providers’ ability to prescribe controlled substances to patients who are mainly receiving telehealth services. While I understand and fully support the need to curb inappropriate overprescribing of controlled medications, I am concerned about the unintended consequences to cancer patients who live at a remote distance from their oncologists and palliative care providers. I remain hopeful that DEA will consider a carveout exception for those patients who have cancer, are receiving palliative care services, or are deemed to be at the end of life, much like the chronic opioid guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have done.
 

Telemedicine in essential care

Back to Jim. Using telehealth and electronic prescribing, our oncology and palliative care programs were able to keep Jim comfortable and at home through the end of his life. He did not have to travel 3 hours each way to get care. He did not have to spend money on parking and gas, and his daughter did not have to take days off work and arrange for a babysitter in order to drive him to our clinic. We partnered with a local pharmacy that was willing to special order medications for Jim when his pain became worse and he required a long-acting opioid. We partnered with a local home health company that kept a close eye on Jim and let us know when he seemed to be declining further, prompting discussions about transitioning to hospice.

I’m proud of the fact that our group helped Jim stay in comfortable surroundings and out of the clinic and hospital over the last 6 months of his life, but that would never have happened without the safe and thoughtful use of telehealth by our team.

Ironically, because of a public health emergency, we were able to provide efficient and high-quality palliative care at the right time, to the right person, in the right place, satisfying CMS goals to provide better care for patients and whole populations at lower costs.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I started taking care of Jim, a 68-year-old man with metastatic renal cell carcinoma back in the fall of 2018. Jim lived far from our clinic in the rural western Sierra Mountains and had a hard time getting to Santa Monica, but needed ongoing pain and symptom management, as well as follow-up visits with oncology and discussions with our teams about preparing for the end of life.

Luckily for Jim, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had relaxed the rules around telehealth because of the public health emergency, and we were easily able to provide telemedicine visits throughout the pandemic ensuring that Jim retained access to the care team that had managed his cancer for several years at that point. This would not have been possible without the use of telemedicine – at least not without great effort and expense by Jim to make frequent trips to our Santa Monica clinic.

So, you can imagine my apprehension when I received an email the other day from our billing department, informing billing providers like myself that “telehealth visits are still covered through the end of the year.” While this initially seemed like reassuring news, it immediately begged the question – what happens at the end of the year? What will care look like for patients like Jim who live at a significant distance from their providers?

The end of the COVID-19 public health emergency on May 11 has prompted states to reevaluate the future of telehealth for Medicaid and Medicare recipients. Most states plan to make some telehealth services permanent, particularly in rural areas. While other telehealth services have been extended through Dec. 31, 2024, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

But still, I worry about the end of the telemedicine era because telehealth (or, “video visits”) has revolutionized outpatient palliative care delivery. We can now see very ill patients in their own homes without imposing an undue burden on them to come in for yet another office visit. Prior to the public health emergency, our embedded palliative care program would see patients only when they were in the oncology clinic so as to not burden them with having to travel to yet another clinic. This made our palliative providers less efficient since patients were being seen by multiple providers in the same space, which led to some time spent waiting around. It also frequently tied up our clinic exam rooms for long periods of time, delaying care for patients sitting in the waiting room.

Telehealth changed that virtually overnight. With the widespread availability of smartphones and tablets, patients could stay at home and speak more comfortably in their own surroundings – especially about the difficult topics we tend to dig into in palliative care – such as fears, suffering, grief, loss, legacy, regret, trauma, gratitude, dying – without the impersonal, aseptic environment of a clinic. We could visit with their family/caregivers, kids, and their pets. We could tour their living space and see how they were managing from a functional standpoint. We could get to know aspects of our patients’ lives that we’d never have seen in the clinic that could help us understand their goals and values better and help care for them more fully.

The benefit to the institution was also measurable. We could see our patients faster – the time from referral to consult dropped dramatically because patients could be scheduled for next-day virtual visits instead of having to wait for them to come back to an oncology visit. We could do quick symptom-focused visits that prior to telehealth would have been conducted by phone without the ability to perform at the very least an observational physical exam of the patient, which is important when prescribing medications to medically frail populations.
 

If telemedicine goes, how will it affect outpatient palliative care?

If that goes away, I do not know what will happen to outpatient palliative care. I can tell you we will be much less efficient in terms of when we see patients. There will probably be a higher clinic burden to patients, as well as higher financial toxicity to patients (Parking in the structure attached to my office building is $22 per day). And, what about the uncaptured costs associated with transportation for those whose illness prevents them from driving themselves? This can range from Uber costs to the time cost for a patient’s family member to take off work and arrange for childcare in order to drive the patient to a clinic for a visit.

In February, I received emails from the Drug Enforcement Agency suggesting that they, too, may roll back providers’ ability to prescribe controlled substances to patients who are mainly receiving telehealth services. While I understand and fully support the need to curb inappropriate overprescribing of controlled medications, I am concerned about the unintended consequences to cancer patients who live at a remote distance from their oncologists and palliative care providers. I remain hopeful that DEA will consider a carveout exception for those patients who have cancer, are receiving palliative care services, or are deemed to be at the end of life, much like the chronic opioid guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have done.
 

Telemedicine in essential care

Back to Jim. Using telehealth and electronic prescribing, our oncology and palliative care programs were able to keep Jim comfortable and at home through the end of his life. He did not have to travel 3 hours each way to get care. He did not have to spend money on parking and gas, and his daughter did not have to take days off work and arrange for a babysitter in order to drive him to our clinic. We partnered with a local pharmacy that was willing to special order medications for Jim when his pain became worse and he required a long-acting opioid. We partnered with a local home health company that kept a close eye on Jim and let us know when he seemed to be declining further, prompting discussions about transitioning to hospice.

I’m proud of the fact that our group helped Jim stay in comfortable surroundings and out of the clinic and hospital over the last 6 months of his life, but that would never have happened without the safe and thoughtful use of telehealth by our team.

Ironically, because of a public health emergency, we were able to provide efficient and high-quality palliative care at the right time, to the right person, in the right place, satisfying CMS goals to provide better care for patients and whole populations at lower costs.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

Researchers have identified specific regions of the brain that appear to be damaged by high blood pressure. The finding may explain the link between hypertension and cognitive impairment.

They used genetic information from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and MRI scans of the brain to study the relationship between hypertension, changes in brain structures, and cognitive impairment. Using Mendelian randomization techniques, they identified nine brain structures related to cognitive impairment that are affected by blood pressure.

Dr Lorenzo Carnevale, IRCCS INM Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy

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

Researchers have identified specific regions of the brain that appear to be damaged by high blood pressure. The finding may explain the link between hypertension and cognitive impairment.

They used genetic information from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and MRI scans of the brain to study the relationship between hypertension, changes in brain structures, and cognitive impairment. Using Mendelian randomization techniques, they identified nine brain structures related to cognitive impairment that are affected by blood pressure.

Dr Lorenzo Carnevale, IRCCS INM Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy

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

Researchers have identified specific regions of the brain that appear to be damaged by high blood pressure. The finding may explain the link between hypertension and cognitive impairment.

They used genetic information from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and MRI scans of the brain to study the relationship between hypertension, changes in brain structures, and cognitive impairment. Using Mendelian randomization techniques, they identified nine brain structures related to cognitive impairment that are affected by blood pressure.

Dr Lorenzo Carnevale, IRCCS INM Neuromed, Pozzilli, Italy

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

Cesarean deliveries in women in the United States who were at low risk for the procedure declined overall during the 2 decades from 2000 to 2019, based on data from more than 40 million deliveries.

Although clinically indicated cesarean deliveries may improve outcomes for mothers and infants, “when not clinically indicated, cesarean delivery is a major surgical intervention that increases risk for adverse outcomes,” wrote Anna M. Frappaolo of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and colleagues.

The Healthy People 2030 campaign includes the reduction of cesarean deliveries, but trends in these procedures, especially with regard to diagnoses of labor arrest, have not been well studied, the researchers said.

In an analysis published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed delivery hospitalizations using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2019.

Births deemed low risk for cesarean delivery were identified by using criteria of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and additional criteria, and joinpoint regression analysis was used to estimate changes.

The researchers examined overall trends in cesarean deliveries as well as trends for three specific diagnoses: nonreassuring fetal status, labor arrest, and obstructed labor.

The final analysis included 40,517,867 deliveries; of these, 4,885,716 (12.1%) were cesarean deliveries.

Overall, cesarean deliveries in patients deemed at low risk increased from 9.7% in 2000 to 13.9% in 2009, then plateaued and decreased from 13.0% in 2012 to 11.1% in 2019. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) for cesarean delivery was 6.4% for the years from 2000 to 2005, 1.2% from 2005 to 2009, and −2.2% from 2009 to 2019.

Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased over the entire study period, from 3.4% in 2000 to 5.1% in 2019. By contrast, overall cesarean delivery for labor arrest increased from 3.6% in 2000 to a high of 4.8% in 2009, then decreased to 2.7% in 2019. Cesarean deliveries with a diagnosis of obstructed labor decreased from 0.9% in 2008 to 0.3% in 2019.

More specifically, cesarean deliveries for labor arrest in the active phase, latent phase, and second stage of labor increased from 1.5% to 2.1%, 1.1% to 1.5%, and 0.9% to 1.3%, respectively, from 2000 to 2009, and decreased from 2.1% to 1.7% for the active phase, from 1.5% to 1.2% for the latent phase, and from 1.2% to 0.9% for the second stage between 2010 and 2019.

Patients with increased odds of cesarean delivery were older (aged 35-39 years vs. 25-29 years, adjusted odds ratio 1.27), delivered in a hospital in the South vs. the Northeast of the United States (aOR 1.11), and were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White (OR 1.23).

Notably, changes in nomenclature and interpretation of intrapartum electronic fetal heart monitoring occurred during the study period, with recommendations for the adoption of a three-tiered system for fetal heart rate patterns in 2008. “It is possible that current evidence and nomenclature related to intrapartum FHR interpretation may result in identification of a larger number of fetuses deemed at indeterminate risk for abnormal acid-base status,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative discharge data rather than clinical records, the exclusion of patients with chronic conditions associated with cesarean delivery, changes in billing codes during the study period, and the inability to account for the effect of health factors, maternal age, and use of assisted reproductive technology, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and 20-year study period, as well as the stratification of labor arrest by stage, and suggest uptake of newer recommendations, they said. “Future reductions in cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for cesarean delivery may be dependent on improved assessment of intrapartum fetal status,” they concluded.

Consider populations and outcomes in cesarean risk assessment

The decreasing rates of cesarean deliveries in the current study can be seen as positive, but more research is needed to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes, and to consider other conditions that affect risk for cesarean delivery, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, MD, and Massimo Candiani, MD, of IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and Antonio Farina, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, the study authors identified a population aged 15-39 years as low risk, and an increased risk for cesarean delivery within this range increased with age. “Maternal age remains a major risk factor associated with the risk of cesarean delivery, both from results of this study and those of previous analyses assessing its independence from other related risk factors,” the editorialists said.

The study findings also reflect the changes in standards for labor duration during the study period, they noted. The longer duration of labor may reduce cesarean delivery rates, but it is not without maternal and fetal-neonatal risks, they wrote.

“To be sure that the described trend of cesarean delivery rate reduction can be considered positive, there would be the theoretical need to analyze other maternal-fetal-neonatal outcomes (e.g., rates of operative deliveries, neonatal acidemia, intensive care unit use, maternal hemorrhage, pelvic floor trauma and dysfunction, and psychological distress),” the editorialists concluded.
 

More research needed to explore clinical decisions

“Reducing the cesarean delivery rate is a top priority, but evidence is lacking on an optimal rate that improves maternal and neonatal outcomes,” Iris Krishna, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Hospital quality and safety committees have been working to decrease cesarean deliveries amongst low-risk women, and identifying contemporary trends gives us insight on whether some of these efforts have translated to a lower cesarean delivery rate,” she said.

Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the higher cesarean section rate in the South. “The decision for cesarean delivery is multifaceted, and although this study was not able to assess clinical indications for cesarean delivery or maternal and fetal outcomes, we cannot ignore that social determinants of health contribute greatly to overall health outcomes,” she said. The trends in the current study further underscore the geographic disparities in access to health care present in the South, she added.

“This study notes that cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased; however, nonreassuring fetal status as an indication for cesarean delivery can be subjective,” Dr. Krishna said. “Hospital quality and safety committees should consider reviewing the clinical scenarios that led to this decision to identify opportunities for improvement and further education,” she said.

“Defining contemporary trends in cesarean delivery for low-risk patients has merit, but the study findings should be interpreted with caution,” said Dr. Krishna, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News advisory board. More research is needed to define an optimal cesarean section rate that promotes positive maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine whether identifying an optimal rate should be based on patient risk profiles, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Frappaolo had no financial conflicts to disclose; nor did the editorial authors or Dr. Krishna.

Cesarean deliveries in women in the United States who were at low risk for the procedure declined overall during the 2 decades from 2000 to 2019, based on data from more than 40 million deliveries.

Although clinically indicated cesarean deliveries may improve outcomes for mothers and infants, “when not clinically indicated, cesarean delivery is a major surgical intervention that increases risk for adverse outcomes,” wrote Anna M. Frappaolo of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and colleagues.

The Healthy People 2030 campaign includes the reduction of cesarean deliveries, but trends in these procedures, especially with regard to diagnoses of labor arrest, have not been well studied, the researchers said.

In an analysis published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed delivery hospitalizations using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2019.

Births deemed low risk for cesarean delivery were identified by using criteria of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and additional criteria, and joinpoint regression analysis was used to estimate changes.

The researchers examined overall trends in cesarean deliveries as well as trends for three specific diagnoses: nonreassuring fetal status, labor arrest, and obstructed labor.

The final analysis included 40,517,867 deliveries; of these, 4,885,716 (12.1%) were cesarean deliveries.

Overall, cesarean deliveries in patients deemed at low risk increased from 9.7% in 2000 to 13.9% in 2009, then plateaued and decreased from 13.0% in 2012 to 11.1% in 2019. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) for cesarean delivery was 6.4% for the years from 2000 to 2005, 1.2% from 2005 to 2009, and −2.2% from 2009 to 2019.

Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased over the entire study period, from 3.4% in 2000 to 5.1% in 2019. By contrast, overall cesarean delivery for labor arrest increased from 3.6% in 2000 to a high of 4.8% in 2009, then decreased to 2.7% in 2019. Cesarean deliveries with a diagnosis of obstructed labor decreased from 0.9% in 2008 to 0.3% in 2019.

More specifically, cesarean deliveries for labor arrest in the active phase, latent phase, and second stage of labor increased from 1.5% to 2.1%, 1.1% to 1.5%, and 0.9% to 1.3%, respectively, from 2000 to 2009, and decreased from 2.1% to 1.7% for the active phase, from 1.5% to 1.2% for the latent phase, and from 1.2% to 0.9% for the second stage between 2010 and 2019.

Patients with increased odds of cesarean delivery were older (aged 35-39 years vs. 25-29 years, adjusted odds ratio 1.27), delivered in a hospital in the South vs. the Northeast of the United States (aOR 1.11), and were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White (OR 1.23).

Notably, changes in nomenclature and interpretation of intrapartum electronic fetal heart monitoring occurred during the study period, with recommendations for the adoption of a three-tiered system for fetal heart rate patterns in 2008. “It is possible that current evidence and nomenclature related to intrapartum FHR interpretation may result in identification of a larger number of fetuses deemed at indeterminate risk for abnormal acid-base status,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative discharge data rather than clinical records, the exclusion of patients with chronic conditions associated with cesarean delivery, changes in billing codes during the study period, and the inability to account for the effect of health factors, maternal age, and use of assisted reproductive technology, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and 20-year study period, as well as the stratification of labor arrest by stage, and suggest uptake of newer recommendations, they said. “Future reductions in cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for cesarean delivery may be dependent on improved assessment of intrapartum fetal status,” they concluded.

Consider populations and outcomes in cesarean risk assessment

The decreasing rates of cesarean deliveries in the current study can be seen as positive, but more research is needed to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes, and to consider other conditions that affect risk for cesarean delivery, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, MD, and Massimo Candiani, MD, of IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and Antonio Farina, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, the study authors identified a population aged 15-39 years as low risk, and an increased risk for cesarean delivery within this range increased with age. “Maternal age remains a major risk factor associated with the risk of cesarean delivery, both from results of this study and those of previous analyses assessing its independence from other related risk factors,” the editorialists said.

The study findings also reflect the changes in standards for labor duration during the study period, they noted. The longer duration of labor may reduce cesarean delivery rates, but it is not without maternal and fetal-neonatal risks, they wrote.

“To be sure that the described trend of cesarean delivery rate reduction can be considered positive, there would be the theoretical need to analyze other maternal-fetal-neonatal outcomes (e.g., rates of operative deliveries, neonatal acidemia, intensive care unit use, maternal hemorrhage, pelvic floor trauma and dysfunction, and psychological distress),” the editorialists concluded.
 

More research needed to explore clinical decisions

“Reducing the cesarean delivery rate is a top priority, but evidence is lacking on an optimal rate that improves maternal and neonatal outcomes,” Iris Krishna, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Hospital quality and safety committees have been working to decrease cesarean deliveries amongst low-risk women, and identifying contemporary trends gives us insight on whether some of these efforts have translated to a lower cesarean delivery rate,” she said.

Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the higher cesarean section rate in the South. “The decision for cesarean delivery is multifaceted, and although this study was not able to assess clinical indications for cesarean delivery or maternal and fetal outcomes, we cannot ignore that social determinants of health contribute greatly to overall health outcomes,” she said. The trends in the current study further underscore the geographic disparities in access to health care present in the South, she added.

“This study notes that cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased; however, nonreassuring fetal status as an indication for cesarean delivery can be subjective,” Dr. Krishna said. “Hospital quality and safety committees should consider reviewing the clinical scenarios that led to this decision to identify opportunities for improvement and further education,” she said.

“Defining contemporary trends in cesarean delivery for low-risk patients has merit, but the study findings should be interpreted with caution,” said Dr. Krishna, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News advisory board. More research is needed to define an optimal cesarean section rate that promotes positive maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine whether identifying an optimal rate should be based on patient risk profiles, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Frappaolo had no financial conflicts to disclose; nor did the editorial authors or Dr. Krishna.

Cesarean deliveries in women in the United States who were at low risk for the procedure declined overall during the 2 decades from 2000 to 2019, based on data from more than 40 million deliveries.

Although clinically indicated cesarean deliveries may improve outcomes for mothers and infants, “when not clinically indicated, cesarean delivery is a major surgical intervention that increases risk for adverse outcomes,” wrote Anna M. Frappaolo of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and colleagues.

The Healthy People 2030 campaign includes the reduction of cesarean deliveries, but trends in these procedures, especially with regard to diagnoses of labor arrest, have not been well studied, the researchers said.

In an analysis published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed delivery hospitalizations using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2019.

Births deemed low risk for cesarean delivery were identified by using criteria of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and additional criteria, and joinpoint regression analysis was used to estimate changes.

The researchers examined overall trends in cesarean deliveries as well as trends for three specific diagnoses: nonreassuring fetal status, labor arrest, and obstructed labor.

The final analysis included 40,517,867 deliveries; of these, 4,885,716 (12.1%) were cesarean deliveries.

Overall, cesarean deliveries in patients deemed at low risk increased from 9.7% in 2000 to 13.9% in 2009, then plateaued and decreased from 13.0% in 2012 to 11.1% in 2019. The average annual percentage change (AAPC) for cesarean delivery was 6.4% for the years from 2000 to 2005, 1.2% from 2005 to 2009, and −2.2% from 2009 to 2019.

Cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased over the entire study period, from 3.4% in 2000 to 5.1% in 2019. By contrast, overall cesarean delivery for labor arrest increased from 3.6% in 2000 to a high of 4.8% in 2009, then decreased to 2.7% in 2019. Cesarean deliveries with a diagnosis of obstructed labor decreased from 0.9% in 2008 to 0.3% in 2019.

More specifically, cesarean deliveries for labor arrest in the active phase, latent phase, and second stage of labor increased from 1.5% to 2.1%, 1.1% to 1.5%, and 0.9% to 1.3%, respectively, from 2000 to 2009, and decreased from 2.1% to 1.7% for the active phase, from 1.5% to 1.2% for the latent phase, and from 1.2% to 0.9% for the second stage between 2010 and 2019.

Patients with increased odds of cesarean delivery were older (aged 35-39 years vs. 25-29 years, adjusted odds ratio 1.27), delivered in a hospital in the South vs. the Northeast of the United States (aOR 1.11), and were more likely to be non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White (OR 1.23).

Notably, changes in nomenclature and interpretation of intrapartum electronic fetal heart monitoring occurred during the study period, with recommendations for the adoption of a three-tiered system for fetal heart rate patterns in 2008. “It is possible that current evidence and nomenclature related to intrapartum FHR interpretation may result in identification of a larger number of fetuses deemed at indeterminate risk for abnormal acid-base status,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative discharge data rather than clinical records, the exclusion of patients with chronic conditions associated with cesarean delivery, changes in billing codes during the study period, and the inability to account for the effect of health factors, maternal age, and use of assisted reproductive technology, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and 20-year study period, as well as the stratification of labor arrest by stage, and suggest uptake of newer recommendations, they said. “Future reductions in cesarean deliveries among patients at low risk for cesarean delivery may be dependent on improved assessment of intrapartum fetal status,” they concluded.

Consider populations and outcomes in cesarean risk assessment

The decreasing rates of cesarean deliveries in the current study can be seen as positive, but more research is needed to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes, and to consider other conditions that affect risk for cesarean delivery, Paolo Ivo Cavoretto, MD, and Massimo Candiani, MD, of IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, and Antonio Farina, MD, of the University of Bologna, Italy, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, the study authors identified a population aged 15-39 years as low risk, and an increased risk for cesarean delivery within this range increased with age. “Maternal age remains a major risk factor associated with the risk of cesarean delivery, both from results of this study and those of previous analyses assessing its independence from other related risk factors,” the editorialists said.

The study findings also reflect the changes in standards for labor duration during the study period, they noted. The longer duration of labor may reduce cesarean delivery rates, but it is not without maternal and fetal-neonatal risks, they wrote.

“To be sure that the described trend of cesarean delivery rate reduction can be considered positive, there would be the theoretical need to analyze other maternal-fetal-neonatal outcomes (e.g., rates of operative deliveries, neonatal acidemia, intensive care unit use, maternal hemorrhage, pelvic floor trauma and dysfunction, and psychological distress),” the editorialists concluded.
 

More research needed to explore clinical decisions

“Reducing the cesarean delivery rate is a top priority, but evidence is lacking on an optimal rate that improves maternal and neonatal outcomes,” Iris Krishna, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Hospital quality and safety committees have been working to decrease cesarean deliveries amongst low-risk women, and identifying contemporary trends gives us insight on whether some of these efforts have translated to a lower cesarean delivery rate,” she said.

Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the higher cesarean section rate in the South. “The decision for cesarean delivery is multifaceted, and although this study was not able to assess clinical indications for cesarean delivery or maternal and fetal outcomes, we cannot ignore that social determinants of health contribute greatly to overall health outcomes,” she said. The trends in the current study further underscore the geographic disparities in access to health care present in the South, she added.

“This study notes that cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status increased; however, nonreassuring fetal status as an indication for cesarean delivery can be subjective,” Dr. Krishna said. “Hospital quality and safety committees should consider reviewing the clinical scenarios that led to this decision to identify opportunities for improvement and further education,” she said.

“Defining contemporary trends in cesarean delivery for low-risk patients has merit, but the study findings should be interpreted with caution,” said Dr. Krishna, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News advisory board. More research is needed to define an optimal cesarean section rate that promotes positive maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine whether identifying an optimal rate should be based on patient risk profiles, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Frappaolo had no financial conflicts to disclose; nor did the editorial authors or Dr. Krishna.

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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

A statement released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology advocates use of supervised exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as coverage for these services by third-party payers.

The authors hope to boost the stature of supervised exercise training (SET) in HFpEF among practitioners and show Medicare and insurers that it deserves reimbursement. Currently, they noted, clinicians tend to recognize exercise as therapy more in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). And Medicare covers exercise training within broader cardiac rehabilitation programs for patients with HFrEF but not HFpEF.

Yet exercise has been broadly effective in HFpEF clinical trials, as outlined in the document. And there are good mechanistic reasons to believe that patients with the disorder can gain as much or more from SET than those with HFrEF.

“The signals for improvement from exercise training, in symptoms and objective measures of exercise capacity, are considerably larger for HFpEF than for HFrEF,” Dalane W. Kitzman, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

So, it’s a bit of a paradox that clinicians don’t prescribe it as often in HFpEF, probably because of the lack of reimbursement but also from less “awareness” and understanding of the disease itself, he proposed.

Dr. Kitzman is senior author on the statement sponsored by the AHA and the ACC. It was published in the societies’ flagship journals Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The statement was also endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, and the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses.
 

Carefully chosen words

The statement makes its case in HFpEF specifically for SET rather than cardiac rehabilitation, the latter typically a comprehensive program that goes beyond exercise, Dr. Kitzman noted. And SET is closer to the exercise interventions used in the supportive HFpEF trials.

“Also, Medicare in recent years has approved something called ‘supervised exercise training’ for other disorders, such as peripheral artery disease.” So, the document specifies SET “to be fully aligned with the evidence base,” he said, as well as “align it with a type of treatment that Medicare has a precedent for approving for other disorders.”
 

Data and physiologic basis

Core features of the AHA/ACC statement is its review of HFpEF exercise physiology, survey of randomized trials supporting SET in the disease, and characterization of exercise as an especially suitable pleiotropic therapy.

Increasingly, “HFpEF is now accepted as a systemic disorder that affects and impacts all organs,” Dr. Kitzman observed. “With a systemic multiorgan disorder, it would make sense that a broad treatment like exercise might be just the right thing. We think that’s the reason that its benefits are really quite large in magnitude.”

The document notes that exercise seems “potentially well suited for the treatment of both the cardiac and, in particular, the extracardiac abnormalities that contribute to exercise intolerance in HFpEF.”

Its effects in the disorder are “anti-inflammatory, rheological, lipid lowering, antihypertensive, positive inotropic, positive lusitropic, negative chronotropic, vasodilation, diuretic, weight-reducing, hypoglycemic, hypnotic, and antidepressive,” the statement notes. It achieves them via multiple pathways involving the heart, lungs, vasculature and, notably, the skeletal muscles.

“It’s been widely overlooked that at least 50% of low exercise capacity and symptoms in HFpEF are due to skeletal muscle dysfunction,” said Dr. Kitzman, an authority on exercise physiology in heart failure.

“But we’ve spent about 95% of our attention trying to modify and understand the cardiac component.” Skeletal muscles, he said, “are not an innocent bystander. They’re part of the problem. And that’s why we should really spend more time focusing on them.”

Dr. Kitzman disclosed receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Medtronic, Corvia Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Keyto, Rivus, NovoNordisk, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; holding stock in Gilead; and receiving grants to his institution from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, and Pfizer.

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