Ob.Gyn. News

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

A combination of estrogen and progesterone given during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle significantly reduced the level of hormones needed for effective contraception, based on data from a new mathematical model.

Progesterone and estrogen are often used for contraception by preventing ovulation, but the adverse effects associated with large doses of these hormones remain a concern, wrote Brenda Lyn A. Gavina, a PhD candidate at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, and colleagues.

In a study published in PLoS Computational Biology, the researchers examined how the timing of hormone administration during a cycle might impact the amount of hormones needed for contraception. Previous research shown that combining hormones can reduce the dosage needed, but the impact of timing on further dose reduction has not been well studied, they said.

The researchers applied optimal control theory in a mathematical model to show the contraceptive effect of estrogen and/or progesterone at different times in the menstrual cycle. The model was based on a normal menstrual cycle with pituitary and ovarian phases. The model assumed that synthesis of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone occurs in the pituitary, that LH and FSH are held in reserve before release into the bloodstream, and that the follicular/luteal mass goes through nine ovarian stages of development. The model also included the activity of ovarian hormones estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), and inhibin (Inh), in a normal cycle. In the model, LH, FSH, and E2 peaked in the late follicular phase, and P4 and Inh peaked in the luteal phase.

The pituitary model predicted the synthesis, release, and clearance of LH and FSH, and the response of the pituitary to E2, P4, and Inh. The ovarian model predicted the response of E2, P4, and Inh as functions of LH and FSH.

The researchers simulated a constant dose of exogenous progesterone monotherapy and combined exogenous estrogen/progesterone. They determined that a P4 peak of 4.99 ng/mL was taken as the optimum constant dosage for progesterone monotherapy, and for combination estrogen/progesterone.

The researchers then assessed the impact of time on dosage. They found that estrogen administration starting on the first day of a normal cycle preventing FHS from reaching maximum value, and that the low level of FHS in the follicular phase and additional P4 inhibition slowed follicular growth, and use of combination estrogen/progesterone caused similar inhibition at a later follicular stage.

“The combination therapy suggests that time-varying doses of estrogen and progesterone given simultaneously from the start to the end of the 28-day period, only requires a surge in estrogen dose around the 12th day of the cycle (a delayed administration compared to the estrogen monotherapy),” they noted.

With attention to timing, the maximum progesterone levels throughout a menstrual cycle were 4.43 ng/mL, 4.66 ng/mL, and 4.31 ng/mL for estrogen monotherapy, progesterone monotherapy, and combination therapy, respectively. Total doses of the optimal exogenous hormone were 77.76 pg/mL and 48.84 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone monotherapy, respectively, and 35.58 pg/mL and 21.67 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone in combination.

The findings were limited by the use of a standard model that does not account for variations in cycle length, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect other studies of hormonal activity, and the model can be used in future studies of the effect of hormones on cycle length, they said.

Overall, the researchers determined that timing dosage with estrogen monotherapy based on their model could provide effective contraception with about 92% of the minimum total constant dosage, while progesterone monotherapy would be effective with approximately 43% of the total constant dose.

Although more work is needed, the current study results may guide clinicians in experimenting with the optimal treatment regimen for anovulation, the researchers said.

“The results presented here give insights on construction of timed devices that give contraception at certain parts of the menstrual cycle,” they concluded.
 

Model aims to improve women’s control of contraception

“Aside from wanting to contribute to controlling population growth, we aim to empower women more by giving them more control on when to conceive and start motherhood,” and be in control of contraception in a safer way, said lead author Ms. Gavina, in an interview. In addition, studies are showing the noncontraceptive benefits of suppressing ovulation for managing premenstrual syndromes such as breast tenderness and irritability, and for managing diseases such as endometriosis, she said. “Anovulation also lowers the risk of ACL injuries in female athletes,” she added.

Ms. Gavina said that she was surprised primarily by the optimal control result for estrogen monotherapy. “It was surprising that, theoretically, our mathematical model, with the simplifying assumptions, showed that as low as 10% of the total dose in constant administration could achieve contraception as long as the administration of this dosage is perfectly timed, and the timing was also shown in our optimization result,” she said.

“Our model does not capture all factors in contraception, since the reproductive function in women is a very complex multiscale dynamical system highly dependent on both endogenous and exogenous hormones,” Ms. Gavina told this news organization. However, “with the emergence of more data, it can be refined to address other contraception issues. Further, although the results of this study are not directly translatable to the clinical setting, we hope that these results may aid clinicians in identifying the minimum dose and treatment schedule for contraception,” she said.

Future research directions include examining within and between women’s variabilities and adding a pharmacokinetics model to account for the effects of specific drugs, she said. “We also hope to expand or modify the current model to investigate reproductive health concerns in women, such as [polycystic ovary syndrome] and ovarian cysts,” she added.

Ms. Gavina disclosed support from the University of the Philippines Office of International Linkages, a Continuous Operational and Outcomes-based Partnership for Excellence in Research and Academic Training Enhancement grant, and a Commission on Higher Education Faculty Development Program-II scholarship.

A combination of estrogen and progesterone given during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle significantly reduced the level of hormones needed for effective contraception, based on data from a new mathematical model.

Progesterone and estrogen are often used for contraception by preventing ovulation, but the adverse effects associated with large doses of these hormones remain a concern, wrote Brenda Lyn A. Gavina, a PhD candidate at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, and colleagues.

In a study published in PLoS Computational Biology, the researchers examined how the timing of hormone administration during a cycle might impact the amount of hormones needed for contraception. Previous research shown that combining hormones can reduce the dosage needed, but the impact of timing on further dose reduction has not been well studied, they said.

The researchers applied optimal control theory in a mathematical model to show the contraceptive effect of estrogen and/or progesterone at different times in the menstrual cycle. The model was based on a normal menstrual cycle with pituitary and ovarian phases. The model assumed that synthesis of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone occurs in the pituitary, that LH and FSH are held in reserve before release into the bloodstream, and that the follicular/luteal mass goes through nine ovarian stages of development. The model also included the activity of ovarian hormones estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), and inhibin (Inh), in a normal cycle. In the model, LH, FSH, and E2 peaked in the late follicular phase, and P4 and Inh peaked in the luteal phase.

The pituitary model predicted the synthesis, release, and clearance of LH and FSH, and the response of the pituitary to E2, P4, and Inh. The ovarian model predicted the response of E2, P4, and Inh as functions of LH and FSH.

The researchers simulated a constant dose of exogenous progesterone monotherapy and combined exogenous estrogen/progesterone. They determined that a P4 peak of 4.99 ng/mL was taken as the optimum constant dosage for progesterone monotherapy, and for combination estrogen/progesterone.

The researchers then assessed the impact of time on dosage. They found that estrogen administration starting on the first day of a normal cycle preventing FHS from reaching maximum value, and that the low level of FHS in the follicular phase and additional P4 inhibition slowed follicular growth, and use of combination estrogen/progesterone caused similar inhibition at a later follicular stage.

“The combination therapy suggests that time-varying doses of estrogen and progesterone given simultaneously from the start to the end of the 28-day period, only requires a surge in estrogen dose around the 12th day of the cycle (a delayed administration compared to the estrogen monotherapy),” they noted.

With attention to timing, the maximum progesterone levels throughout a menstrual cycle were 4.43 ng/mL, 4.66 ng/mL, and 4.31 ng/mL for estrogen monotherapy, progesterone monotherapy, and combination therapy, respectively. Total doses of the optimal exogenous hormone were 77.76 pg/mL and 48.84 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone monotherapy, respectively, and 35.58 pg/mL and 21.67 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone in combination.

The findings were limited by the use of a standard model that does not account for variations in cycle length, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect other studies of hormonal activity, and the model can be used in future studies of the effect of hormones on cycle length, they said.

Overall, the researchers determined that timing dosage with estrogen monotherapy based on their model could provide effective contraception with about 92% of the minimum total constant dosage, while progesterone monotherapy would be effective with approximately 43% of the total constant dose.

Although more work is needed, the current study results may guide clinicians in experimenting with the optimal treatment regimen for anovulation, the researchers said.

“The results presented here give insights on construction of timed devices that give contraception at certain parts of the menstrual cycle,” they concluded.
 

Model aims to improve women’s control of contraception

“Aside from wanting to contribute to controlling population growth, we aim to empower women more by giving them more control on when to conceive and start motherhood,” and be in control of contraception in a safer way, said lead author Ms. Gavina, in an interview. In addition, studies are showing the noncontraceptive benefits of suppressing ovulation for managing premenstrual syndromes such as breast tenderness and irritability, and for managing diseases such as endometriosis, she said. “Anovulation also lowers the risk of ACL injuries in female athletes,” she added.

Ms. Gavina said that she was surprised primarily by the optimal control result for estrogen monotherapy. “It was surprising that, theoretically, our mathematical model, with the simplifying assumptions, showed that as low as 10% of the total dose in constant administration could achieve contraception as long as the administration of this dosage is perfectly timed, and the timing was also shown in our optimization result,” she said.

“Our model does not capture all factors in contraception, since the reproductive function in women is a very complex multiscale dynamical system highly dependent on both endogenous and exogenous hormones,” Ms. Gavina told this news organization. However, “with the emergence of more data, it can be refined to address other contraception issues. Further, although the results of this study are not directly translatable to the clinical setting, we hope that these results may aid clinicians in identifying the minimum dose and treatment schedule for contraception,” she said.

Future research directions include examining within and between women’s variabilities and adding a pharmacokinetics model to account for the effects of specific drugs, she said. “We also hope to expand or modify the current model to investigate reproductive health concerns in women, such as [polycystic ovary syndrome] and ovarian cysts,” she added.

Ms. Gavina disclosed support from the University of the Philippines Office of International Linkages, a Continuous Operational and Outcomes-based Partnership for Excellence in Research and Academic Training Enhancement grant, and a Commission on Higher Education Faculty Development Program-II scholarship.

A combination of estrogen and progesterone given during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle significantly reduced the level of hormones needed for effective contraception, based on data from a new mathematical model.

Progesterone and estrogen are often used for contraception by preventing ovulation, but the adverse effects associated with large doses of these hormones remain a concern, wrote Brenda Lyn A. Gavina, a PhD candidate at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, and colleagues.

In a study published in PLoS Computational Biology, the researchers examined how the timing of hormone administration during a cycle might impact the amount of hormones needed for contraception. Previous research shown that combining hormones can reduce the dosage needed, but the impact of timing on further dose reduction has not been well studied, they said.

The researchers applied optimal control theory in a mathematical model to show the contraceptive effect of estrogen and/or progesterone at different times in the menstrual cycle. The model was based on a normal menstrual cycle with pituitary and ovarian phases. The model assumed that synthesis of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone occurs in the pituitary, that LH and FSH are held in reserve before release into the bloodstream, and that the follicular/luteal mass goes through nine ovarian stages of development. The model also included the activity of ovarian hormones estradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), and inhibin (Inh), in a normal cycle. In the model, LH, FSH, and E2 peaked in the late follicular phase, and P4 and Inh peaked in the luteal phase.

The pituitary model predicted the synthesis, release, and clearance of LH and FSH, and the response of the pituitary to E2, P4, and Inh. The ovarian model predicted the response of E2, P4, and Inh as functions of LH and FSH.

The researchers simulated a constant dose of exogenous progesterone monotherapy and combined exogenous estrogen/progesterone. They determined that a P4 peak of 4.99 ng/mL was taken as the optimum constant dosage for progesterone monotherapy, and for combination estrogen/progesterone.

The researchers then assessed the impact of time on dosage. They found that estrogen administration starting on the first day of a normal cycle preventing FHS from reaching maximum value, and that the low level of FHS in the follicular phase and additional P4 inhibition slowed follicular growth, and use of combination estrogen/progesterone caused similar inhibition at a later follicular stage.

“The combination therapy suggests that time-varying doses of estrogen and progesterone given simultaneously from the start to the end of the 28-day period, only requires a surge in estrogen dose around the 12th day of the cycle (a delayed administration compared to the estrogen monotherapy),” they noted.

With attention to timing, the maximum progesterone levels throughout a menstrual cycle were 4.43 ng/mL, 4.66 ng/mL, and 4.31 ng/mL for estrogen monotherapy, progesterone monotherapy, and combination therapy, respectively. Total doses of the optimal exogenous hormone were 77.76 pg/mL and 48.84 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone monotherapy, respectively, and 35.58 pg/mL and 21.67 ng/mL for estrogen and progesterone in combination.

The findings were limited by the use of a standard model that does not account for variations in cycle length, the researchers noted. However, the results reflect other studies of hormonal activity, and the model can be used in future studies of the effect of hormones on cycle length, they said.

Overall, the researchers determined that timing dosage with estrogen monotherapy based on their model could provide effective contraception with about 92% of the minimum total constant dosage, while progesterone monotherapy would be effective with approximately 43% of the total constant dose.

Although more work is needed, the current study results may guide clinicians in experimenting with the optimal treatment regimen for anovulation, the researchers said.

“The results presented here give insights on construction of timed devices that give contraception at certain parts of the menstrual cycle,” they concluded.
 

Model aims to improve women’s control of contraception

“Aside from wanting to contribute to controlling population growth, we aim to empower women more by giving them more control on when to conceive and start motherhood,” and be in control of contraception in a safer way, said lead author Ms. Gavina, in an interview. In addition, studies are showing the noncontraceptive benefits of suppressing ovulation for managing premenstrual syndromes such as breast tenderness and irritability, and for managing diseases such as endometriosis, she said. “Anovulation also lowers the risk of ACL injuries in female athletes,” she added.

Ms. Gavina said that she was surprised primarily by the optimal control result for estrogen monotherapy. “It was surprising that, theoretically, our mathematical model, with the simplifying assumptions, showed that as low as 10% of the total dose in constant administration could achieve contraception as long as the administration of this dosage is perfectly timed, and the timing was also shown in our optimization result,” she said.

“Our model does not capture all factors in contraception, since the reproductive function in women is a very complex multiscale dynamical system highly dependent on both endogenous and exogenous hormones,” Ms. Gavina told this news organization. However, “with the emergence of more data, it can be refined to address other contraception issues. Further, although the results of this study are not directly translatable to the clinical setting, we hope that these results may aid clinicians in identifying the minimum dose and treatment schedule for contraception,” she said.

Future research directions include examining within and between women’s variabilities and adding a pharmacokinetics model to account for the effects of specific drugs, she said. “We also hope to expand or modify the current model to investigate reproductive health concerns in women, such as [polycystic ovary syndrome] and ovarian cysts,” she added.

Ms. Gavina disclosed support from the University of the Philippines Office of International Linkages, a Continuous Operational and Outcomes-based Partnership for Excellence in Research and Academic Training Enhancement grant, and a Commission on Higher Education Faculty Development Program-II scholarship.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

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

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

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

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

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