MDedge Rheumatology

People who maintain a vegan diet show significant deficits in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores; however, resistance training not only appears to improve those deficits but may have a stronger effect in vegans, suggesting an important strategy in maintaining bone health with a vegan diet.

“We expected better bone structure in both vegans and omnivores who reported resistance training,” first author Robert Wakolbinger-Habel, MD, PhD, of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in an interview.

Thinkstock.com

“However, we expected [there would still be] differences in structure between vegans and omnivores [who practiced resistance training], as previous literature reported higher fracture rates in vegans,” he said. “Still, the positive message is that ‘pumping iron’ could counterbalance these differences between vegans and omnivores.”

The research was published online in The Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Exercise significantly impacts bone health in vegans

The potential effects of the plant-based vegan diet on bone health have been reported in studies linking the diet to an increased risk of fractures and lower bone mineral density (BMD), with common theories including lower bone- and muscle-building protein in vegan diets.

However, most previous studies have not considered other key factors, such as the effects of exercise, the authors noted.

“While previous studies on bone health in vegans only took BMD, biochemical and nutritional parameters into account, they did not consider the significant effects of physical activity,” they wrote.

“By ignoring these effects, important factors influencing bone health are neglected.”

For the study, 88 participants were enrolled in Vienna, with vegan participants recruited with the help of the Austrian Vegan Society.

Importantly, the study documented participants’ bone microarchitecture, a key measure of bone strength that has also not been previously investigated in vegans, using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT.

Inclusion criteria included maintaining an omnivore diet of meat and plant-based foods or a vegan diet for at least 5 years, not being underweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], 18.5-30 kg/m²), being age 30-50 years, and being premenopausal.

Of the participants, 43 were vegan and 45 were omnivores, with generally equal ratios of men and women.

Vegan bone deficits disappear with strength training

Overall, compared with omnivores, the vegan group showed significant deficits in 7 of 14 measures of BMI-adjusted trabecular and cortical structure (all P < .05).

Among participants who reported no resistance training, vegans still showed significant decreases in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores, including radius trabecular BMD, radius trabecular bone volume fraction, and other tibial and cortical bone microarchitecture measures.

However, among those who did report progressive resistant training (20 vegans and 25 omnivores), defined as using machines, free weights, or bodyweight resistance exercises at least once a week, those differences disappeared and there were no significant differences in BMI-adjusted bone microarchitecture between vegans and omnivores after the 5 years.

Of note, no significant differences in bone microarchitecture were observed between those who performed exclusively aerobic activities and those who reported no sports activities in the vegan or omnivore group.

Based on the findings, “other types of exercise such as aerobics, cycling, etc, would not be sufficient for a similar positive effect on bone [as resistance training],” Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel said.

Although the findings suggest that resistance training seemed to allow vegans to “catch up” with omnivores in terms of bone microarchitecture, Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel cautioned that a study limitation is the relatively low number of participants.

“The absolute numbers suggest that in vegans the differences, and the relative effect, respectively of resistance training might be larger,” he said. “However, the number of participants in the subgroups is small and it is still an observational study, so we need to be careful in drawing causal conclusions.”

Serum bone markers were within normal ranges across all subgroups. And although there were some correlations between nutrient intake and bone microarchitecture among vegans who did and did not practice resistance training, no conclusions could be drawn from that data, the authors noted.

“Based on our data, the structural [differences between vegans and omnivores] cannot solely be explained by deficits in certain nutrients according to lifestyle,” the authors concluded.
 

Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which progressive resistance training could result in the benefits include that mechanical loads trigger stimulation of key pathways involved in bone formation, or mechanotransduction, the authors explained.

The unique effects have been observed in other studies, including one study showing that, among young adult runners, the addition of resistance training once a week was associated with significantly greater BMD.

“Veganism is a global trend with strongly increasing numbers of people worldwide adhering to a purely plant-based diet,” first author Christian Muschitz, MD, also of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in a press statement.

“Our study showed resistance training offsets diminished bone structure in vegan people when compared to omnivores,” he said.

Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel recommended that, based on the findings, “exercise, including resistance training, should be strongly advocated [for vegans], I would say, at least two times per week.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who maintain a vegan diet show significant deficits in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores; however, resistance training not only appears to improve those deficits but may have a stronger effect in vegans, suggesting an important strategy in maintaining bone health with a vegan diet.

“We expected better bone structure in both vegans and omnivores who reported resistance training,” first author Robert Wakolbinger-Habel, MD, PhD, of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in an interview.

Thinkstock.com

“However, we expected [there would still be] differences in structure between vegans and omnivores [who practiced resistance training], as previous literature reported higher fracture rates in vegans,” he said. “Still, the positive message is that ‘pumping iron’ could counterbalance these differences between vegans and omnivores.”

The research was published online in The Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Exercise significantly impacts bone health in vegans

The potential effects of the plant-based vegan diet on bone health have been reported in studies linking the diet to an increased risk of fractures and lower bone mineral density (BMD), with common theories including lower bone- and muscle-building protein in vegan diets.

However, most previous studies have not considered other key factors, such as the effects of exercise, the authors noted.

“While previous studies on bone health in vegans only took BMD, biochemical and nutritional parameters into account, they did not consider the significant effects of physical activity,” they wrote.

“By ignoring these effects, important factors influencing bone health are neglected.”

For the study, 88 participants were enrolled in Vienna, with vegan participants recruited with the help of the Austrian Vegan Society.

Importantly, the study documented participants’ bone microarchitecture, a key measure of bone strength that has also not been previously investigated in vegans, using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT.

Inclusion criteria included maintaining an omnivore diet of meat and plant-based foods or a vegan diet for at least 5 years, not being underweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], 18.5-30 kg/m²), being age 30-50 years, and being premenopausal.

Of the participants, 43 were vegan and 45 were omnivores, with generally equal ratios of men and women.

Vegan bone deficits disappear with strength training

Overall, compared with omnivores, the vegan group showed significant deficits in 7 of 14 measures of BMI-adjusted trabecular and cortical structure (all P < .05).

Among participants who reported no resistance training, vegans still showed significant decreases in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores, including radius trabecular BMD, radius trabecular bone volume fraction, and other tibial and cortical bone microarchitecture measures.

However, among those who did report progressive resistant training (20 vegans and 25 omnivores), defined as using machines, free weights, or bodyweight resistance exercises at least once a week, those differences disappeared and there were no significant differences in BMI-adjusted bone microarchitecture between vegans and omnivores after the 5 years.

Of note, no significant differences in bone microarchitecture were observed between those who performed exclusively aerobic activities and those who reported no sports activities in the vegan or omnivore group.

Based on the findings, “other types of exercise such as aerobics, cycling, etc, would not be sufficient for a similar positive effect on bone [as resistance training],” Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel said.

Although the findings suggest that resistance training seemed to allow vegans to “catch up” with omnivores in terms of bone microarchitecture, Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel cautioned that a study limitation is the relatively low number of participants.

“The absolute numbers suggest that in vegans the differences, and the relative effect, respectively of resistance training might be larger,” he said. “However, the number of participants in the subgroups is small and it is still an observational study, so we need to be careful in drawing causal conclusions.”

Serum bone markers were within normal ranges across all subgroups. And although there were some correlations between nutrient intake and bone microarchitecture among vegans who did and did not practice resistance training, no conclusions could be drawn from that data, the authors noted.

“Based on our data, the structural [differences between vegans and omnivores] cannot solely be explained by deficits in certain nutrients according to lifestyle,” the authors concluded.
 

Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which progressive resistance training could result in the benefits include that mechanical loads trigger stimulation of key pathways involved in bone formation, or mechanotransduction, the authors explained.

The unique effects have been observed in other studies, including one study showing that, among young adult runners, the addition of resistance training once a week was associated with significantly greater BMD.

“Veganism is a global trend with strongly increasing numbers of people worldwide adhering to a purely plant-based diet,” first author Christian Muschitz, MD, also of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in a press statement.

“Our study showed resistance training offsets diminished bone structure in vegan people when compared to omnivores,” he said.

Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel recommended that, based on the findings, “exercise, including resistance training, should be strongly advocated [for vegans], I would say, at least two times per week.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who maintain a vegan diet show significant deficits in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores; however, resistance training not only appears to improve those deficits but may have a stronger effect in vegans, suggesting an important strategy in maintaining bone health with a vegan diet.

“We expected better bone structure in both vegans and omnivores who reported resistance training,” first author Robert Wakolbinger-Habel, MD, PhD, of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in an interview.

Thinkstock.com

“However, we expected [there would still be] differences in structure between vegans and omnivores [who practiced resistance training], as previous literature reported higher fracture rates in vegans,” he said. “Still, the positive message is that ‘pumping iron’ could counterbalance these differences between vegans and omnivores.”

The research was published online in The Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Exercise significantly impacts bone health in vegans

The potential effects of the plant-based vegan diet on bone health have been reported in studies linking the diet to an increased risk of fractures and lower bone mineral density (BMD), with common theories including lower bone- and muscle-building protein in vegan diets.

However, most previous studies have not considered other key factors, such as the effects of exercise, the authors noted.

“While previous studies on bone health in vegans only took BMD, biochemical and nutritional parameters into account, they did not consider the significant effects of physical activity,” they wrote.

“By ignoring these effects, important factors influencing bone health are neglected.”

For the study, 88 participants were enrolled in Vienna, with vegan participants recruited with the help of the Austrian Vegan Society.

Importantly, the study documented participants’ bone microarchitecture, a key measure of bone strength that has also not been previously investigated in vegans, using high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT.

Inclusion criteria included maintaining an omnivore diet of meat and plant-based foods or a vegan diet for at least 5 years, not being underweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], 18.5-30 kg/m²), being age 30-50 years, and being premenopausal.

Of the participants, 43 were vegan and 45 were omnivores, with generally equal ratios of men and women.

Vegan bone deficits disappear with strength training

Overall, compared with omnivores, the vegan group showed significant deficits in 7 of 14 measures of BMI-adjusted trabecular and cortical structure (all P < .05).

Among participants who reported no resistance training, vegans still showed significant decreases in bone microarchitecture, compared with omnivores, including radius trabecular BMD, radius trabecular bone volume fraction, and other tibial and cortical bone microarchitecture measures.

However, among those who did report progressive resistant training (20 vegans and 25 omnivores), defined as using machines, free weights, or bodyweight resistance exercises at least once a week, those differences disappeared and there were no significant differences in BMI-adjusted bone microarchitecture between vegans and omnivores after the 5 years.

Of note, no significant differences in bone microarchitecture were observed between those who performed exclusively aerobic activities and those who reported no sports activities in the vegan or omnivore group.

Based on the findings, “other types of exercise such as aerobics, cycling, etc, would not be sufficient for a similar positive effect on bone [as resistance training],” Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel said.

Although the findings suggest that resistance training seemed to allow vegans to “catch up” with omnivores in terms of bone microarchitecture, Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel cautioned that a study limitation is the relatively low number of participants.

“The absolute numbers suggest that in vegans the differences, and the relative effect, respectively of resistance training might be larger,” he said. “However, the number of participants in the subgroups is small and it is still an observational study, so we need to be careful in drawing causal conclusions.”

Serum bone markers were within normal ranges across all subgroups. And although there were some correlations between nutrient intake and bone microarchitecture among vegans who did and did not practice resistance training, no conclusions could be drawn from that data, the authors noted.

“Based on our data, the structural [differences between vegans and omnivores] cannot solely be explained by deficits in certain nutrients according to lifestyle,” the authors concluded.
 

Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which progressive resistance training could result in the benefits include that mechanical loads trigger stimulation of key pathways involved in bone formation, or mechanotransduction, the authors explained.

The unique effects have been observed in other studies, including one study showing that, among young adult runners, the addition of resistance training once a week was associated with significantly greater BMD.

“Veganism is a global trend with strongly increasing numbers of people worldwide adhering to a purely plant-based diet,” first author Christian Muschitz, MD, also of St. Vincent Hospital Vienna and the Medical University of Vienna, said in a press statement.

“Our study showed resistance training offsets diminished bone structure in vegan people when compared to omnivores,” he said.

Dr. Wakolbinger-Habel recommended that, based on the findings, “exercise, including resistance training, should be strongly advocated [for vegans], I would say, at least two times per week.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Of all the headaches inherent in a private medical practice, few are more frustrating than patients who make appointments and then fail to keep them.

No-shows are a problem for all physicians, but especially for dermatologists. In one study, the no-show rate in dermatology offices averaged 10% – almost double the average for all medical offices.

The problem has become so pervasive that many physicians are now charging a fee for missed appointments. I have never been a fan of such fees for a variety of reasons, starting with the anger and bad will that they engender; but also, in my experience, they seldom accomplish their intended goal of changing the behavior.

That’s because fees imply some sort of conscious decision made by a patient to miss an appointment, but studies show that this is rarely the case. Some patients cite transportation issues or childcare obligations. One Canadian study found that nearly a quarter of patients who missed an appointment felt too sick to keep it. Another reason is lack of insurance coverage. Studies have shown that the no-show rate is far higher when the patient is paying out-of-pocket for the visit.

Patients who don’t show up for appointments tend to be younger and poorer, and live farther away from the office than those who attend consistently. Some patients may be unaware that they need to cancel, while others report that they don’t feel obliged to keep appointments because they feel disrespected by the system. One person posted on a medical forum, “Everyone’s time is valuable. When the doctor makes me wait, there are consequences too. Why are there two standards in the situation?”

The most common reason for missed appointments, however, according to multiple studies, is that patients simply forget that they have one. One reason for that is a lag between appointment and visit. Many dermatologists are booked well in advance; by the time the appointment arrives, some patients’ complaints will have resolved spontaneously, while other patients will have found another office willing to see them sooner.

Another big reason is the absence of a strong physician-patient relationship. Perhaps the patient sees a different doctor or physician assistant at each visit and doesn’t feel a particular bond with any of them. Some patients may perceive a lack of concern on the part of the physician. And others may suffer from poor communication; for example, patients frequently become frustrated that a chronic condition has not resolved, when it has not been clearly explained to them that such problems cannot be expected to resolve rapidly or completely.

Whatever the reasons, no-shows are an economic and medicolegal liability. It is worth the considerable effort it often takes to minimize them.

Research suggests that no-show rates can be reduced by providing more same-day or next-day appointments. One large-scale analysis of national data found that same-day appointments accounted for just 2% of no-shows, while appointments booked 15 days or more in advance accounted for nearly a third of them. Canadian studies have likewise found the risk of no-shows increases the further in advance clinics book patients.

Deal with simple forgetfulness by calling your patients the day before to remind them of their appointments. Reasonably priced phone software is available from a variety of vendors to automate this process. Or hire a teenager to do it after school each day.

Whenever possible, use cellphone numbers for reminder calls. Patients often aren’t home during the day, and many don’t listen to their messages when they come in. And patients who have moved will often have a new home phone number, but their cellphone number will be the same.

Decrease the wait for new appointments. Keep some slots open each week for new patients, who will often “shop around” for a faster appointment while they’re waiting for an appointment they already have elsewhere.

But above all, seek to maximize the strength of your physician-patient relationships. Try not to shuttle patients between different physicians or PAs, and make it clear that you are genuinely concerned about their health. Impress upon them the crucial role they play in their own care, which includes keeping all their appointments.

In our office, significant no-shows (for example, a patient with a melanoma who misses a follow-up visit) receive a phone call and a certified letter, and their records go into a special file for close follow-up by the nursing staff.

If you choose to go the missed-appointment-fee route, be sure to post notices in your office and on your website clearly delineating your policy. Emphasize that it is not a service fee, and cannot be billed to insurance.

All missed appointments should be documented in the patient’s record; it’s important clinical and medicolegal information. And habitual no-shows should be dismissed from your practice. You cannot afford them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Of all the headaches inherent in a private medical practice, few are more frustrating than patients who make appointments and then fail to keep them.

No-shows are a problem for all physicians, but especially for dermatologists. In one study, the no-show rate in dermatology offices averaged 10% – almost double the average for all medical offices.

The problem has become so pervasive that many physicians are now charging a fee for missed appointments. I have never been a fan of such fees for a variety of reasons, starting with the anger and bad will that they engender; but also, in my experience, they seldom accomplish their intended goal of changing the behavior.

That’s because fees imply some sort of conscious decision made by a patient to miss an appointment, but studies show that this is rarely the case. Some patients cite transportation issues or childcare obligations. One Canadian study found that nearly a quarter of patients who missed an appointment felt too sick to keep it. Another reason is lack of insurance coverage. Studies have shown that the no-show rate is far higher when the patient is paying out-of-pocket for the visit.

Patients who don’t show up for appointments tend to be younger and poorer, and live farther away from the office than those who attend consistently. Some patients may be unaware that they need to cancel, while others report that they don’t feel obliged to keep appointments because they feel disrespected by the system. One person posted on a medical forum, “Everyone’s time is valuable. When the doctor makes me wait, there are consequences too. Why are there two standards in the situation?”

The most common reason for missed appointments, however, according to multiple studies, is that patients simply forget that they have one. One reason for that is a lag between appointment and visit. Many dermatologists are booked well in advance; by the time the appointment arrives, some patients’ complaints will have resolved spontaneously, while other patients will have found another office willing to see them sooner.

Another big reason is the absence of a strong physician-patient relationship. Perhaps the patient sees a different doctor or physician assistant at each visit and doesn’t feel a particular bond with any of them. Some patients may perceive a lack of concern on the part of the physician. And others may suffer from poor communication; for example, patients frequently become frustrated that a chronic condition has not resolved, when it has not been clearly explained to them that such problems cannot be expected to resolve rapidly or completely.

Whatever the reasons, no-shows are an economic and medicolegal liability. It is worth the considerable effort it often takes to minimize them.

Research suggests that no-show rates can be reduced by providing more same-day or next-day appointments. One large-scale analysis of national data found that same-day appointments accounted for just 2% of no-shows, while appointments booked 15 days or more in advance accounted for nearly a third of them. Canadian studies have likewise found the risk of no-shows increases the further in advance clinics book patients.

Deal with simple forgetfulness by calling your patients the day before to remind them of their appointments. Reasonably priced phone software is available from a variety of vendors to automate this process. Or hire a teenager to do it after school each day.

Whenever possible, use cellphone numbers for reminder calls. Patients often aren’t home during the day, and many don’t listen to their messages when they come in. And patients who have moved will often have a new home phone number, but their cellphone number will be the same.

Decrease the wait for new appointments. Keep some slots open each week for new patients, who will often “shop around” for a faster appointment while they’re waiting for an appointment they already have elsewhere.

But above all, seek to maximize the strength of your physician-patient relationships. Try not to shuttle patients between different physicians or PAs, and make it clear that you are genuinely concerned about their health. Impress upon them the crucial role they play in their own care, which includes keeping all their appointments.

In our office, significant no-shows (for example, a patient with a melanoma who misses a follow-up visit) receive a phone call and a certified letter, and their records go into a special file for close follow-up by the nursing staff.

If you choose to go the missed-appointment-fee route, be sure to post notices in your office and on your website clearly delineating your policy. Emphasize that it is not a service fee, and cannot be billed to insurance.

All missed appointments should be documented in the patient’s record; it’s important clinical and medicolegal information. And habitual no-shows should be dismissed from your practice. You cannot afford them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Of all the headaches inherent in a private medical practice, few are more frustrating than patients who make appointments and then fail to keep them.

No-shows are a problem for all physicians, but especially for dermatologists. In one study, the no-show rate in dermatology offices averaged 10% – almost double the average for all medical offices.

The problem has become so pervasive that many physicians are now charging a fee for missed appointments. I have never been a fan of such fees for a variety of reasons, starting with the anger and bad will that they engender; but also, in my experience, they seldom accomplish their intended goal of changing the behavior.

That’s because fees imply some sort of conscious decision made by a patient to miss an appointment, but studies show that this is rarely the case. Some patients cite transportation issues or childcare obligations. One Canadian study found that nearly a quarter of patients who missed an appointment felt too sick to keep it. Another reason is lack of insurance coverage. Studies have shown that the no-show rate is far higher when the patient is paying out-of-pocket for the visit.

Patients who don’t show up for appointments tend to be younger and poorer, and live farther away from the office than those who attend consistently. Some patients may be unaware that they need to cancel, while others report that they don’t feel obliged to keep appointments because they feel disrespected by the system. One person posted on a medical forum, “Everyone’s time is valuable. When the doctor makes me wait, there are consequences too. Why are there two standards in the situation?”

The most common reason for missed appointments, however, according to multiple studies, is that patients simply forget that they have one. One reason for that is a lag between appointment and visit. Many dermatologists are booked well in advance; by the time the appointment arrives, some patients’ complaints will have resolved spontaneously, while other patients will have found another office willing to see them sooner.

Another big reason is the absence of a strong physician-patient relationship. Perhaps the patient sees a different doctor or physician assistant at each visit and doesn’t feel a particular bond with any of them. Some patients may perceive a lack of concern on the part of the physician. And others may suffer from poor communication; for example, patients frequently become frustrated that a chronic condition has not resolved, when it has not been clearly explained to them that such problems cannot be expected to resolve rapidly or completely.

Whatever the reasons, no-shows are an economic and medicolegal liability. It is worth the considerable effort it often takes to minimize them.

Research suggests that no-show rates can be reduced by providing more same-day or next-day appointments. One large-scale analysis of national data found that same-day appointments accounted for just 2% of no-shows, while appointments booked 15 days or more in advance accounted for nearly a third of them. Canadian studies have likewise found the risk of no-shows increases the further in advance clinics book patients.

Deal with simple forgetfulness by calling your patients the day before to remind them of their appointments. Reasonably priced phone software is available from a variety of vendors to automate this process. Or hire a teenager to do it after school each day.

Whenever possible, use cellphone numbers for reminder calls. Patients often aren’t home during the day, and many don’t listen to their messages when they come in. And patients who have moved will often have a new home phone number, but their cellphone number will be the same.

Decrease the wait for new appointments. Keep some slots open each week for new patients, who will often “shop around” for a faster appointment while they’re waiting for an appointment they already have elsewhere.

But above all, seek to maximize the strength of your physician-patient relationships. Try not to shuttle patients between different physicians or PAs, and make it clear that you are genuinely concerned about their health. Impress upon them the crucial role they play in their own care, which includes keeping all their appointments.

In our office, significant no-shows (for example, a patient with a melanoma who misses a follow-up visit) receive a phone call and a certified letter, and their records go into a special file for close follow-up by the nursing staff.

If you choose to go the missed-appointment-fee route, be sure to post notices in your office and on your website clearly delineating your policy. Emphasize that it is not a service fee, and cannot be billed to insurance.

All missed appointments should be documented in the patient’s record; it’s important clinical and medicolegal information. And habitual no-shows should be dismissed from your practice. You cannot afford them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Only 21% of rheumatology journals showed gender-balanced editorial boards, defined as 40%-60% women members, based on data from 34 publications.

Women remain underrepresented on the editorial boards of medical journals in general, and rheumatology journals are no exception, according to Pavel V. Ovseiko, DPhil, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues.

“Gender representation on editorial boards matters because editorships-in-chief and editorial board memberships are prestigious roles that increase the visibility of role-holders and provide opportunities to influence research and practice through agenda setting, editorial decision making, and peer review,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in The Lancet Rheumatology, the researchers examined the websites of 34 rheumatology publications in December 2021. The gender of the board members was estimated using a name-to-gender inference platform and checked against personal pronouns and photos used online.

Overall, six journals (15%) had female editors-in-chief or the equivalent, and 27% of the total editorial board members were women.

Occupation had a significant impact on gender representation. Gender was equally balanced (50%) for the four journals in which a publishing professional served as editor-in-chief, and women comprised 74% of the editorial board memberships held by publishing professionals.

However, women comprised only 11% of editorships and 26% of editorial board memberships held by academics or clinicians.

“Although academic rheumatology is male-dominated, academic publishing is female-dominated,” the researchers wrote.

Gender equity is important for rheumatology in part because most rheumatology patients are women, and the proportion of women in rheumatology is increasing in many countries, the researchers noted.

“Greater diversity on editorial boards is likely to have a positive effect on the quality of science through adequate consideration and reporting of sex-related and gender-related variables,” they said.

The seven journals with gender-balanced editorial boards were Acta Reumatologica Portuguesa, Arthritis & Rheumatology, Arthritis Care & Research, The Lancet Rheumatology, Lupus Science & Medicine, Nature Reviews Rheumatology, and Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

To achieve gender balance and diversity on editorial boards, the researchers offered strategies including advertising openings through open calls, establishing and monitoring gender diversity targets, and limiting editorial board appointments to fixed terms.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several serve on the editorial boards of various rheumatology journals.

Only 21% of rheumatology journals showed gender-balanced editorial boards, defined as 40%-60% women members, based on data from 34 publications.

Women remain underrepresented on the editorial boards of medical journals in general, and rheumatology journals are no exception, according to Pavel V. Ovseiko, DPhil, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues.

“Gender representation on editorial boards matters because editorships-in-chief and editorial board memberships are prestigious roles that increase the visibility of role-holders and provide opportunities to influence research and practice through agenda setting, editorial decision making, and peer review,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in The Lancet Rheumatology, the researchers examined the websites of 34 rheumatology publications in December 2021. The gender of the board members was estimated using a name-to-gender inference platform and checked against personal pronouns and photos used online.

Overall, six journals (15%) had female editors-in-chief or the equivalent, and 27% of the total editorial board members were women.

Occupation had a significant impact on gender representation. Gender was equally balanced (50%) for the four journals in which a publishing professional served as editor-in-chief, and women comprised 74% of the editorial board memberships held by publishing professionals.

However, women comprised only 11% of editorships and 26% of editorial board memberships held by academics or clinicians.

“Although academic rheumatology is male-dominated, academic publishing is female-dominated,” the researchers wrote.

Gender equity is important for rheumatology in part because most rheumatology patients are women, and the proportion of women in rheumatology is increasing in many countries, the researchers noted.

“Greater diversity on editorial boards is likely to have a positive effect on the quality of science through adequate consideration and reporting of sex-related and gender-related variables,” they said.

The seven journals with gender-balanced editorial boards were Acta Reumatologica Portuguesa, Arthritis & Rheumatology, Arthritis Care & Research, The Lancet Rheumatology, Lupus Science & Medicine, Nature Reviews Rheumatology, and Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

To achieve gender balance and diversity on editorial boards, the researchers offered strategies including advertising openings through open calls, establishing and monitoring gender diversity targets, and limiting editorial board appointments to fixed terms.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several serve on the editorial boards of various rheumatology journals.

Only 21% of rheumatology journals showed gender-balanced editorial boards, defined as 40%-60% women members, based on data from 34 publications.

Women remain underrepresented on the editorial boards of medical journals in general, and rheumatology journals are no exception, according to Pavel V. Ovseiko, DPhil, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues.

“Gender representation on editorial boards matters because editorships-in-chief and editorial board memberships are prestigious roles that increase the visibility of role-holders and provide opportunities to influence research and practice through agenda setting, editorial decision making, and peer review,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in The Lancet Rheumatology, the researchers examined the websites of 34 rheumatology publications in December 2021. The gender of the board members was estimated using a name-to-gender inference platform and checked against personal pronouns and photos used online.

Overall, six journals (15%) had female editors-in-chief or the equivalent, and 27% of the total editorial board members were women.

Occupation had a significant impact on gender representation. Gender was equally balanced (50%) for the four journals in which a publishing professional served as editor-in-chief, and women comprised 74% of the editorial board memberships held by publishing professionals.

However, women comprised only 11% of editorships and 26% of editorial board memberships held by academics or clinicians.

“Although academic rheumatology is male-dominated, academic publishing is female-dominated,” the researchers wrote.

Gender equity is important for rheumatology in part because most rheumatology patients are women, and the proportion of women in rheumatology is increasing in many countries, the researchers noted.

“Greater diversity on editorial boards is likely to have a positive effect on the quality of science through adequate consideration and reporting of sex-related and gender-related variables,” they said.

The seven journals with gender-balanced editorial boards were Acta Reumatologica Portuguesa, Arthritis & Rheumatology, Arthritis Care & Research, The Lancet Rheumatology, Lupus Science & Medicine, Nature Reviews Rheumatology, and Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

To achieve gender balance and diversity on editorial boards, the researchers offered strategies including advertising openings through open calls, establishing and monitoring gender diversity targets, and limiting editorial board appointments to fixed terms.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several serve on the editorial boards of various rheumatology journals.

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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