Rheumatology News

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

Americans can now have free COVID-19 rapid tests delivered directly to their homes.

The Biden administration’s new no-cost, at-home testing program launched Jan. 18, a day ahead of schedule.

The administration said 500 million tests are available to be delivered to homes across the country. This accounts for half of the president’s recent pledge to purchase 1 billion free at-home COVID-19 tests to distribute to the American public.

On a Jan. 14 call with reporters, senior White House officials offered some details about the new program.

Here’s what we know so far.

How do I order my free tests?

Americans can visit COVIDtests.gov to order their rapid at-home tests. You can also order directly from the U.S. Postal Service website. After you order, you’ll receive a confirmation email that promises to send tracking information once your order ships.

What information do I need to order the tests?

You only need your name and home mailing address.

There is also an option to provide your email address to get updates on the status of your order.

What if someone needs help ordering the tests?

There will be a free call-in line for people needing more help, including those having trouble accessing the internet, according to White House officials.

What tests will be available?

There are nine at-home tests available through FDA emergency use authorization. According to the Frequently Asked Questions section of COVIDtests.gov, "You will not be able to choose the  brand  you order as part of this program.”

How long will it take to get the tests once I order them?

Tests are expected to ship 7 to 12 days after you order them.

But White House officials say that the time frame will likely shorten as the program gains steam.

How many can I order?

There’s a limit of four tests per residential mailing address.

For larger families, White House officials suggest trying other free testing options, like visiting COVID-19 testing sites or your local health center.

Is this a one-time opportunity?

The White House doesn’t say, but officials did mention that if you run out of your four free tests, there are many other ways to access free at-home tests, such as COVID-19 testing sites, pharmacies, and community health centers.

The free tests available through COVIDtests.gov are in addition to an estimated 375 million at-home rapid tests on the market in the U.S. this month.

When should people use a rapid at-home test?

The CDC and experts with other public health groups agree that Americans should consider using at-home rapid tests in the following situations:

• If they begin to have symptoms consistent with COVID-19;
• At least 5 days after close contact with someone who has COVID;
• If someone is indoors with a group of people who are at risk of severe disease or are unvaccinated.

Are at-home rapid tests accurate?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials confirmed through studies that all tests distributed through this program can detect the Omicron variant. These agencies also confirmed that their performance is consistent with the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

Is the website designed to handle high demand?

After the original website to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act crashed repeatedly at launch, the government says it has prepared for high demand for ordering at-home rapid tests.

The U.S. Digital Service (USDS), an organization founded after Healthcare.gov, has partnered with the Postal Service to plan for the launch.

The Postal Service has expanded its staffing, similar to what’s done during the holidays.

All orders in the continental United States will be shipped through first-class mail, with shipments to Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. territories, and military and overseas addresses sent through priority mail.

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

A majority of adults support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of skin conditions, but relatively few have actually tried such a product, according to the results of a recent survey.

Almost 89% of respondents were in favor of medical cannabis use for dermatologic diseases, and 73% said that they would be comfortable seeing a dermatologist who recommended such products to them, Samuel Yeroushalmi, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, and associates reported.

“Consumers and patients are already using MCPs [medical cannabis products] to treat inflammatory skin conditions, such as acne, rosacea, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, even without guidance from a dermatologist. While acceptance was high, there were clear barriers reported limiting use and uptake, such as patient skepticism and a lack of understanding,” Adam Friedman, MD, senior author and chair of the department of dermatology at the university, said in a separate statement.

Dermatologic use of OTC cannabis products without the recommendation of a dermatologist was reported by 18% of the 504 of 700 adults who responded in the SurveyMonkey online panel. Of the two-thirds who had seen a dermatologist, 20% received a recommendation for an OTC product and 11% were recommended a product that required a department of health medical card, the investigators said.

Uptake among the patients who did receive a recommendation, however, was high: 76% for OTC products and 72% for those that required a medical card. Among those who had received an OTC recommendation, 32% used the cannabis product for psoriasis and 30% each for acne and rosacea, Mr. Yeroushalmi and his coauthors said.

The most common indication among the respondents with dermatologist recommendations for products requiring a medical card was for acne (68%), followed by psoriasis and rosacea (28% each). Cost was the main deterrent (60%) for those who declined to use the recommended cannabis product, with skepticism, limited understanding, and product illegality in their state each at 50%, the researchers said.

“Though cost and legality concerns are nonmodifiable barriers, dermatologists have an opportunity to educate those who know little in the way of medical cannabis or are skeptic[s],” they wrote. The survey results show that many patients are interested, and “the future should be bright for MCPs; we just need to show and disseminate the science,” Dr. Friedman commented in the statement.

One of the authors was from the University of Maryland, College Park. The authors had no disclosures to report.

A majority of adults support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of skin conditions, but relatively few have actually tried such a product, according to the results of a recent survey.

Almost 89% of respondents were in favor of medical cannabis use for dermatologic diseases, and 73% said that they would be comfortable seeing a dermatologist who recommended such products to them, Samuel Yeroushalmi, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, and associates reported.

“Consumers and patients are already using MCPs [medical cannabis products] to treat inflammatory skin conditions, such as acne, rosacea, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, even without guidance from a dermatologist. While acceptance was high, there were clear barriers reported limiting use and uptake, such as patient skepticism and a lack of understanding,” Adam Friedman, MD, senior author and chair of the department of dermatology at the university, said in a separate statement.

Dermatologic use of OTC cannabis products without the recommendation of a dermatologist was reported by 18% of the 504 of 700 adults who responded in the SurveyMonkey online panel. Of the two-thirds who had seen a dermatologist, 20% received a recommendation for an OTC product and 11% were recommended a product that required a department of health medical card, the investigators said.

Uptake among the patients who did receive a recommendation, however, was high: 76% for OTC products and 72% for those that required a medical card. Among those who had received an OTC recommendation, 32% used the cannabis product for psoriasis and 30% each for acne and rosacea, Mr. Yeroushalmi and his coauthors said.

The most common indication among the respondents with dermatologist recommendations for products requiring a medical card was for acne (68%), followed by psoriasis and rosacea (28% each). Cost was the main deterrent (60%) for those who declined to use the recommended cannabis product, with skepticism, limited understanding, and product illegality in their state each at 50%, the researchers said.

“Though cost and legality concerns are nonmodifiable barriers, dermatologists have an opportunity to educate those who know little in the way of medical cannabis or are skeptic[s],” they wrote. The survey results show that many patients are interested, and “the future should be bright for MCPs; we just need to show and disseminate the science,” Dr. Friedman commented in the statement.

One of the authors was from the University of Maryland, College Park. The authors had no disclosures to report.

A majority of adults support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of skin conditions, but relatively few have actually tried such a product, according to the results of a recent survey.

Almost 89% of respondents were in favor of medical cannabis use for dermatologic diseases, and 73% said that they would be comfortable seeing a dermatologist who recommended such products to them, Samuel Yeroushalmi, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, Washington, and associates reported.

“Consumers and patients are already using MCPs [medical cannabis products] to treat inflammatory skin conditions, such as acne, rosacea, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, even without guidance from a dermatologist. While acceptance was high, there were clear barriers reported limiting use and uptake, such as patient skepticism and a lack of understanding,” Adam Friedman, MD, senior author and chair of the department of dermatology at the university, said in a separate statement.

Dermatologic use of OTC cannabis products without the recommendation of a dermatologist was reported by 18% of the 504 of 700 adults who responded in the SurveyMonkey online panel. Of the two-thirds who had seen a dermatologist, 20% received a recommendation for an OTC product and 11% were recommended a product that required a department of health medical card, the investigators said.

Uptake among the patients who did receive a recommendation, however, was high: 76% for OTC products and 72% for those that required a medical card. Among those who had received an OTC recommendation, 32% used the cannabis product for psoriasis and 30% each for acne and rosacea, Mr. Yeroushalmi and his coauthors said.

The most common indication among the respondents with dermatologist recommendations for products requiring a medical card was for acne (68%), followed by psoriasis and rosacea (28% each). Cost was the main deterrent (60%) for those who declined to use the recommended cannabis product, with skepticism, limited understanding, and product illegality in their state each at 50%, the researchers said.

“Though cost and legality concerns are nonmodifiable barriers, dermatologists have an opportunity to educate those who know little in the way of medical cannabis or are skeptic[s],” they wrote. The survey results show that many patients are interested, and “the future should be bright for MCPs; we just need to show and disseminate the science,” Dr. Friedman commented in the statement.

One of the authors was from the University of Maryland, College Park. The authors had no disclosures to report.

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

Americans will be able to order free, at-home rapid COVID-19 tests online at COVIDTests.gov starting Jan. 19.

The tests will ship within 7 to 12 days after being ordered, senior officials from President Joe Biden’s administration said Jan. 14. The U.S. Postal Service will handle the shipping and delivery through first-class mail.

People will input their name and mailing address on the website and can share an email address to receive updates on the order, according to NPR. People won’t need to pay shipping costs or enter a credit card number to order tests, according to the website’s homepage.

The website will be offered in both English and Spanish. The Biden administration will also set up a phone number so those without internet access can place orders.

Officials didn’t share a specific time that the website will open, according to he New York Times  — simply that it will go live sometime on Jan. 19. Each household will be limited to ordering four tests.

Starting Jan. 15, people with private insurance were able to seek reimbursement for tests they purchase on their own. At the same time, some insurers have said it could take weeks to set up a system for smooth reimbursement, the newspaper reported.

Last week’s announcement is the latest step in the president’s pledge to get coronavirus tests to Americans. In December, Biden said his administration would purchase 500 million tests and distribute them to Americans for free. On Jan. 13, he announced that the administration would buy another 500 million tests, bringing the total to 1 billion.

So far, the administration has signed contracts to produce 420 million tests, the newspaper reported. With the website opening this week and the lag in shipping, the tests will likely arrive by the end of January at the earliest, which could be after the peak of the current coronavirus surge in some parts of the country.

At-home tests have been in high demand, with some pharmacies, retailers, and websites reporting no stock in recent weeks. People have lined up at community testing sites for hours to get tested as the national average of daily cases has climbed above 800,000 last week.

Some consumers have also been confused about how or when to use at-home tests. On Jan. 14, Biden administration officials said that people should use rapid tests for three reasons:

• If they begin to experience COVID-19 symptoms;
• When it has been five or more days after being exposed to someone who tests positive;
• If they are gathering indoors with a high-risk person and want to check if they are negative.

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

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

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].

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

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].

After a recent column about the dilemma of dealing with patients who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, several readers raised the question of how to properly dismiss patients from a practice, for that or any other reason. Specifically, most asked: “How do I dismiss a patient without violating any laws?”

Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion, there are no statutory laws that I am aware of that directly apply to patient dismissal, beyond the obvious ones prohibiting discrimination that I’ve discussed many times. The more realistic concern is leaving yourself vulnerable to civil litigation – usually charges of abandonment.

Criteria will vary by region, jurisdiction, and practice. Since there are no hard and fast rules, your reasons for dismissal should be determined in advance, written out, and included in your practice manual. Once you have laid down your rules, follow them. Exceptions should be rare and made only under extraordinary circumstances.

Most patients are dismissed because of interpersonal conflicts between physician or staff members. Usually, that involves noncompliance with a reasonable treatment plan (including vaccinations), but there are other valid reasons. These include threats of violence, inappropriate sexual advances, providing false or misleading medical history, demands for inappropriate treatments or medications, and repeated failure to keep appointments or pay bills. And most ethics experts agree that you can dismiss someone who insists on treatment outside your area of expertise, or at a location other than your private office.

Even when circumstances warrant, dismissal should be a last resort. As with most interpersonal conflicts, your best option is usually reconciliation. Sit down with the patient, explain your concerns, and discuss what must be done if your doctor-patient relationship is to continue. Often, such patients are not aware (or willing to admit) that they are violating your office policies. Honest communication will often save such relationships. But be sure to make it clear that failure to address the problems you have outlined will result in dismissal from your practice. Document this conversation in detail in the patient’s chart, and follow up with a written communication reconfirming what you discussed.

If, despite your best (documented) efforts, the problems continue and dismissal becomes necessary, following a few generally accepted guidelines will help keep the process smooth and consequence free.

First, try to avoid dismissing a patient in the middle of a course of treatment. If that is unavoidable, you might want to contact your malpractice carrier and review the case with them prior to doing so.

Inform the patient, preferably by certified mail, of your decision. Spell out your reasons, with a reminder that these problems were discussed, and that a warning was issued and not heeded. If the patient belongs to a third-party health plan, be certain that you are acting within the stipulations of your contract with that plan, and inform the payer in writing of your action.

Once again, you must clearly document in the patient’s chart exactly how he or she violated your office policies. This will minimize grounds for charges of discrimination of any sort. Be especially diligent about this step if the patient has any known physical or mental disability.

Give the patient a reasonable amount of time (30 days is common) to find another physician, and mention that you will address any emergent problems within the scope of your specialty within that 30-day period. To minimize any potential allegations of abandonment, include a list of competent physicians in your area (without any guarantees) who might be willing to assume the patient’s care. Alternatively, you can list the phone number or website of a local medical society that they can contact to find a replacement. Offer to transfer medical records to the new physician upon receipt of written permission.

File a copy or scan of the letter, the certified delivery receipt, and the returned signature card in the patient’s chart. While the law states that a first-class letter, properly addressed and stamped, is presumed to have been delivered, you don’t want any question as to whether the patient received written notice of dismissal.

Forcibly ending a physician-patient relationship is a significant event that should not be undertaken lightly. Again, dismissal should be a rare occurrence, a last resort.

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].

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Approximately one-third of registered randomized, controlled trials for connective tissue diseases are incomplete or unpublished, based on data from 175 studies.

“The failure to complete a trial is a waste of time and money, and a missed opportunity to contribute to patient’s health,” Alejandro Brigante, MD, of the Internal Medicine–Rheumatology service at Güemes Sanitorium in Buenos Aires, and colleagues wrote.

Patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) experience high levels of disability, poor quality of life, and poor survival, and more randomized, controlled trials are needed to explore treatment options, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the researchers examined factors leading to the failure of CTD studies. They identified 175 studies of CTDs registered at clinicaltrials.gov since 2000. Most of the studies were phase 3, placebo-controlled trials involving pharmacologic treatments; 117 (67%) were identified as completed, 58 (33%) were identified as discontinued. Approximately half (51%) of the studies involved systemic lupus erythematosus, and half were funded by industry. The median sample size planned for the studies was 101 patients, and 83 studies stated a plan to recruit less than 100 patients.

Of the 58 discontinued trials, 12 were withdrawn, 33 were terminated, and 13 had an unknown status. These trials represented a potential enrollment of 11,389 patients, 31% of the estimated number of patients across all 175 studies.

The researchers found identified reasons for discontinuation for 39 of the 58 discontinued trials. The main reasons included insufficient patient accrual in 11 trials, interim results showing futility (8 trials), safety concerns (5 trials), funding issues (5 trials), conduct problems (4 trials), company decisions (2 trials), administrative reasons (2 trials), and departure of the principal investigator (1 trial); the reason for discontinuation was unclear in 1 trial. Discontinuation rates were not significantly different across disease types.

“By subtracting from the 58 discontinued trials the 13 studies for which early termination was justified (e.g., discontinuation for futility or safety concerns), we considered 45 (26%) trials prematurely terminated,” the researchers wrote. Overall, completed studies were less likely than discontinued studies to have a placebo group, and they had longer treatment periods to evaluate primary outcomes. A sample size of less than 100 patients was the only factor significantly associated with early study termination (odds ratio, 2.1), after controlling for multiple variables.

The researchers checked the publication status of 130 studies, including 94 completed and 36 discontinued randomized, controlled trials. Of these, 44 were unpublished and 86 were published in a peer-reviewed journal at a median of 24 months after study completion. The publication rate was significantly higher for completed studies, compared with discontinued studies (81% vs. 22%), and the rates were not significantly different among diseases. The main reasons for nonpublication included poor recruitment, study rejection and preparation for resubmission, lack of time, low priority, and the fact that the study was ongoing. A sample size of less than 100 patients was the main barrier to publication for completed studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including selection bias and inability to study factors, such as study complexity or the nature of interventions that might have affected trial completion, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on negative results and the possible missed publication of some of the studies.

However, the results illustrate the waste of resources in CTD trials, which are needed to identify effective treatments for these patients, the researchers said. “A better understanding of the factors leading to waste will guide future allocation of resources and could help to maximize the successful conduct of RCTs.”

More research is needed to determine the most effective interventions and reduce the risk of trial noncompletion and nonpublication, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one-third of registered randomized, controlled trials for connective tissue diseases are incomplete or unpublished, based on data from 175 studies.

“The failure to complete a trial is a waste of time and money, and a missed opportunity to contribute to patient’s health,” Alejandro Brigante, MD, of the Internal Medicine–Rheumatology service at Güemes Sanitorium in Buenos Aires, and colleagues wrote.

Patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) experience high levels of disability, poor quality of life, and poor survival, and more randomized, controlled trials are needed to explore treatment options, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the researchers examined factors leading to the failure of CTD studies. They identified 175 studies of CTDs registered at clinicaltrials.gov since 2000. Most of the studies were phase 3, placebo-controlled trials involving pharmacologic treatments; 117 (67%) were identified as completed, 58 (33%) were identified as discontinued. Approximately half (51%) of the studies involved systemic lupus erythematosus, and half were funded by industry. The median sample size planned for the studies was 101 patients, and 83 studies stated a plan to recruit less than 100 patients.

Of the 58 discontinued trials, 12 were withdrawn, 33 were terminated, and 13 had an unknown status. These trials represented a potential enrollment of 11,389 patients, 31% of the estimated number of patients across all 175 studies.

The researchers found identified reasons for discontinuation for 39 of the 58 discontinued trials. The main reasons included insufficient patient accrual in 11 trials, interim results showing futility (8 trials), safety concerns (5 trials), funding issues (5 trials), conduct problems (4 trials), company decisions (2 trials), administrative reasons (2 trials), and departure of the principal investigator (1 trial); the reason for discontinuation was unclear in 1 trial. Discontinuation rates were not significantly different across disease types.

“By subtracting from the 58 discontinued trials the 13 studies for which early termination was justified (e.g., discontinuation for futility or safety concerns), we considered 45 (26%) trials prematurely terminated,” the researchers wrote. Overall, completed studies were less likely than discontinued studies to have a placebo group, and they had longer treatment periods to evaluate primary outcomes. A sample size of less than 100 patients was the only factor significantly associated with early study termination (odds ratio, 2.1), after controlling for multiple variables.

The researchers checked the publication status of 130 studies, including 94 completed and 36 discontinued randomized, controlled trials. Of these, 44 were unpublished and 86 were published in a peer-reviewed journal at a median of 24 months after study completion. The publication rate was significantly higher for completed studies, compared with discontinued studies (81% vs. 22%), and the rates were not significantly different among diseases. The main reasons for nonpublication included poor recruitment, study rejection and preparation for resubmission, lack of time, low priority, and the fact that the study was ongoing. A sample size of less than 100 patients was the main barrier to publication for completed studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including selection bias and inability to study factors, such as study complexity or the nature of interventions that might have affected trial completion, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on negative results and the possible missed publication of some of the studies.

However, the results illustrate the waste of resources in CTD trials, which are needed to identify effective treatments for these patients, the researchers said. “A better understanding of the factors leading to waste will guide future allocation of resources and could help to maximize the successful conduct of RCTs.”

More research is needed to determine the most effective interventions and reduce the risk of trial noncompletion and nonpublication, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one-third of registered randomized, controlled trials for connective tissue diseases are incomplete or unpublished, based on data from 175 studies.

“The failure to complete a trial is a waste of time and money, and a missed opportunity to contribute to patient’s health,” Alejandro Brigante, MD, of the Internal Medicine–Rheumatology service at Güemes Sanitorium in Buenos Aires, and colleagues wrote.

Patients with connective tissue diseases (CTDs) experience high levels of disability, poor quality of life, and poor survival, and more randomized, controlled trials are needed to explore treatment options, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the researchers examined factors leading to the failure of CTD studies. They identified 175 studies of CTDs registered at clinicaltrials.gov since 2000. Most of the studies were phase 3, placebo-controlled trials involving pharmacologic treatments; 117 (67%) were identified as completed, 58 (33%) were identified as discontinued. Approximately half (51%) of the studies involved systemic lupus erythematosus, and half were funded by industry. The median sample size planned for the studies was 101 patients, and 83 studies stated a plan to recruit less than 100 patients.

Of the 58 discontinued trials, 12 were withdrawn, 33 were terminated, and 13 had an unknown status. These trials represented a potential enrollment of 11,389 patients, 31% of the estimated number of patients across all 175 studies.

The researchers found identified reasons for discontinuation for 39 of the 58 discontinued trials. The main reasons included insufficient patient accrual in 11 trials, interim results showing futility (8 trials), safety concerns (5 trials), funding issues (5 trials), conduct problems (4 trials), company decisions (2 trials), administrative reasons (2 trials), and departure of the principal investigator (1 trial); the reason for discontinuation was unclear in 1 trial. Discontinuation rates were not significantly different across disease types.

“By subtracting from the 58 discontinued trials the 13 studies for which early termination was justified (e.g., discontinuation for futility or safety concerns), we considered 45 (26%) trials prematurely terminated,” the researchers wrote. Overall, completed studies were less likely than discontinued studies to have a placebo group, and they had longer treatment periods to evaluate primary outcomes. A sample size of less than 100 patients was the only factor significantly associated with early study termination (odds ratio, 2.1), after controlling for multiple variables.

The researchers checked the publication status of 130 studies, including 94 completed and 36 discontinued randomized, controlled trials. Of these, 44 were unpublished and 86 were published in a peer-reviewed journal at a median of 24 months after study completion. The publication rate was significantly higher for completed studies, compared with discontinued studies (81% vs. 22%), and the rates were not significantly different among diseases. The main reasons for nonpublication included poor recruitment, study rejection and preparation for resubmission, lack of time, low priority, and the fact that the study was ongoing. A sample size of less than 100 patients was the main barrier to publication for completed studies.

The study findings were limited by several factors including selection bias and inability to study factors, such as study complexity or the nature of interventions that might have affected trial completion, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on negative results and the possible missed publication of some of the studies.

However, the results illustrate the waste of resources in CTD trials, which are needed to identify effective treatments for these patients, the researchers said. “A better understanding of the factors leading to waste will guide future allocation of resources and could help to maximize the successful conduct of RCTs.”

More research is needed to determine the most effective interventions and reduce the risk of trial noncompletion and nonpublication, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Researchers found a small but greater risk of a hip fracture after 2 years of taking a “drug holiday” – stopping therapy – after long-term (≥3-year) use of one bisphosphonate, risedronate, versus another, alendronate.   

The risk of a hip fracture after stopping either of these oral bisphosphonate osteoporosis drugs was similar until 2 years, suggesting that patients who take a drug holiday from risedronate should be revaluated before 2 years.

These top-line findings from a propensity-matched cohort study of older patients in Ontario, Canada, were reported at the annual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) last fall.

The full study, led by Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, PhD, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“We emphasize that our results do not indicate that alendronate therapy should be preferred over risedronate therapy,” the researchers stress, as several real-world studies found a similar risk of fractures while patients were receiving either drug.

“The decision to initiate alendronate or risedronate therapy [the two most commonly prescribed bisphosphonates] is driven by the prescriber,” they note, adding that some patients may prefer risedronate because it is available as a monthly dose or a weekly delayed-release formula that does not require fasting. 

“We found little difference in the association between risedronate versus alendronate drug holidays and hip fractures until approximately 2 years of not receiving therapy,” Dr. Hayes and colleagues summarize.

Over 3 years, risedronate drug holidays were associated with an 18% relative and 0.6% absolute increased risk for hip fracture compared with alendronate drug holidays.

“To further inform clinical decision-making on drug holidays,” they conclude, “future research should examine when to start and restart osteoporosis therapy on the basis of initial length and type of treatment, patient characteristics, and relative risk for hip fractures versus [atypical femoral fracture].”
 

Hip fracture risk with risedronate vs. alendronate drug holiday

Long-term bisphosphonate use is associated with a rare risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fractures. At the same time, bisphosphonates continue to have a therapeutic effect after therapy is discontinued.

Guidelines recommend that patients at low risk of fracture should therefore have a “drug holiday” after 3 to 5 years of bisphosphonate use and be reassessed 2 to 3 years later, largely based on the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-Term Extension (FLEX) study of alendronate. But risedronate has a shorter half-life, so it may provide shorter residual fracture protection.

Using Ontario administrative data, Dr. Hayes and associates identified more than 60,000 patients who were over aged 65, had received at least 3 years of continuous alendronate or risedronate, and had a subsequent 3-year drug holiday between 2000 and 2020.

They excluded patients who had a fracture or entered a nursing home within 120 days of starting a drug holiday who may have stopped the bisphosphonate due to declining health rather than a drug holiday.

Roughly half (55%) had been taking risedronate and 45% had been taking alendronate.

Using propensity scores, the researchers matched 25,077 patients who had been taking risedronate with an equal number who had been taking alendronate.

Most of the patients were women (82%) and were White.

They started the drug holiday when they were on average 81 years old, after taking the bisphosphonate for 5.9 years on average.

During the 3-year drug holiday, 915 of the 50,154 patients had hip fractures.

This was equivalent to 12.4 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during a risedronate holiday and 10.6 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during an alendronate holiday (hazard ratio, 1.18).  

The risk of hip fracture was not significantly higher at 1 year (HR, 1.03) or at 2 years of a risedronate holiday versus an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.14).

However, the risk of a hip fracture was significantly higher at 2 to 3 years of a risedronate holiday than after an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.34). 

There was no significant difference in the risk of any osteoporotic fracture overall (including hip, vertebrae, pelvis, ribs, forearm), however, during a 3-year risedronate versus alendronate drug holiday (HR, 1.07).

The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Hayes was supported by a CIHR doctoral research award. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers found a small but greater risk of a hip fracture after 2 years of taking a “drug holiday” – stopping therapy – after long-term (≥3-year) use of one bisphosphonate, risedronate, versus another, alendronate.   

The risk of a hip fracture after stopping either of these oral bisphosphonate osteoporosis drugs was similar until 2 years, suggesting that patients who take a drug holiday from risedronate should be revaluated before 2 years.

These top-line findings from a propensity-matched cohort study of older patients in Ontario, Canada, were reported at the annual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) last fall.

The full study, led by Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, PhD, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“We emphasize that our results do not indicate that alendronate therapy should be preferred over risedronate therapy,” the researchers stress, as several real-world studies found a similar risk of fractures while patients were receiving either drug.

“The decision to initiate alendronate or risedronate therapy [the two most commonly prescribed bisphosphonates] is driven by the prescriber,” they note, adding that some patients may prefer risedronate because it is available as a monthly dose or a weekly delayed-release formula that does not require fasting. 

“We found little difference in the association between risedronate versus alendronate drug holidays and hip fractures until approximately 2 years of not receiving therapy,” Dr. Hayes and colleagues summarize.

Over 3 years, risedronate drug holidays were associated with an 18% relative and 0.6% absolute increased risk for hip fracture compared with alendronate drug holidays.

“To further inform clinical decision-making on drug holidays,” they conclude, “future research should examine when to start and restart osteoporosis therapy on the basis of initial length and type of treatment, patient characteristics, and relative risk for hip fractures versus [atypical femoral fracture].”
 

Hip fracture risk with risedronate vs. alendronate drug holiday

Long-term bisphosphonate use is associated with a rare risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fractures. At the same time, bisphosphonates continue to have a therapeutic effect after therapy is discontinued.

Guidelines recommend that patients at low risk of fracture should therefore have a “drug holiday” after 3 to 5 years of bisphosphonate use and be reassessed 2 to 3 years later, largely based on the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-Term Extension (FLEX) study of alendronate. But risedronate has a shorter half-life, so it may provide shorter residual fracture protection.

Using Ontario administrative data, Dr. Hayes and associates identified more than 60,000 patients who were over aged 65, had received at least 3 years of continuous alendronate or risedronate, and had a subsequent 3-year drug holiday between 2000 and 2020.

They excluded patients who had a fracture or entered a nursing home within 120 days of starting a drug holiday who may have stopped the bisphosphonate due to declining health rather than a drug holiday.

Roughly half (55%) had been taking risedronate and 45% had been taking alendronate.

Using propensity scores, the researchers matched 25,077 patients who had been taking risedronate with an equal number who had been taking alendronate.

Most of the patients were women (82%) and were White.

They started the drug holiday when they were on average 81 years old, after taking the bisphosphonate for 5.9 years on average.

During the 3-year drug holiday, 915 of the 50,154 patients had hip fractures.

This was equivalent to 12.4 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during a risedronate holiday and 10.6 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during an alendronate holiday (hazard ratio, 1.18).  

The risk of hip fracture was not significantly higher at 1 year (HR, 1.03) or at 2 years of a risedronate holiday versus an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.14).

However, the risk of a hip fracture was significantly higher at 2 to 3 years of a risedronate holiday than after an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.34). 

There was no significant difference in the risk of any osteoporotic fracture overall (including hip, vertebrae, pelvis, ribs, forearm), however, during a 3-year risedronate versus alendronate drug holiday (HR, 1.07).

The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Hayes was supported by a CIHR doctoral research award. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers found a small but greater risk of a hip fracture after 2 years of taking a “drug holiday” – stopping therapy – after long-term (≥3-year) use of one bisphosphonate, risedronate, versus another, alendronate.   

The risk of a hip fracture after stopping either of these oral bisphosphonate osteoporosis drugs was similar until 2 years, suggesting that patients who take a drug holiday from risedronate should be revaluated before 2 years.

These top-line findings from a propensity-matched cohort study of older patients in Ontario, Canada, were reported at the annual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) last fall.

The full study, led by Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, PhD, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“We emphasize that our results do not indicate that alendronate therapy should be preferred over risedronate therapy,” the researchers stress, as several real-world studies found a similar risk of fractures while patients were receiving either drug.

“The decision to initiate alendronate or risedronate therapy [the two most commonly prescribed bisphosphonates] is driven by the prescriber,” they note, adding that some patients may prefer risedronate because it is available as a monthly dose or a weekly delayed-release formula that does not require fasting. 

“We found little difference in the association between risedronate versus alendronate drug holidays and hip fractures until approximately 2 years of not receiving therapy,” Dr. Hayes and colleagues summarize.

Over 3 years, risedronate drug holidays were associated with an 18% relative and 0.6% absolute increased risk for hip fracture compared with alendronate drug holidays.

“To further inform clinical decision-making on drug holidays,” they conclude, “future research should examine when to start and restart osteoporosis therapy on the basis of initial length and type of treatment, patient characteristics, and relative risk for hip fractures versus [atypical femoral fracture].”
 

Hip fracture risk with risedronate vs. alendronate drug holiday

Long-term bisphosphonate use is associated with a rare risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fractures. At the same time, bisphosphonates continue to have a therapeutic effect after therapy is discontinued.

Guidelines recommend that patients at low risk of fracture should therefore have a “drug holiday” after 3 to 5 years of bisphosphonate use and be reassessed 2 to 3 years later, largely based on the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-Term Extension (FLEX) study of alendronate. But risedronate has a shorter half-life, so it may provide shorter residual fracture protection.

Using Ontario administrative data, Dr. Hayes and associates identified more than 60,000 patients who were over aged 65, had received at least 3 years of continuous alendronate or risedronate, and had a subsequent 3-year drug holiday between 2000 and 2020.

They excluded patients who had a fracture or entered a nursing home within 120 days of starting a drug holiday who may have stopped the bisphosphonate due to declining health rather than a drug holiday.

Roughly half (55%) had been taking risedronate and 45% had been taking alendronate.

Using propensity scores, the researchers matched 25,077 patients who had been taking risedronate with an equal number who had been taking alendronate.

Most of the patients were women (82%) and were White.

They started the drug holiday when they were on average 81 years old, after taking the bisphosphonate for 5.9 years on average.

During the 3-year drug holiday, 915 of the 50,154 patients had hip fractures.

This was equivalent to 12.4 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during a risedronate holiday and 10.6 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during an alendronate holiday (hazard ratio, 1.18).  

The risk of hip fracture was not significantly higher at 1 year (HR, 1.03) or at 2 years of a risedronate holiday versus an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.14).

However, the risk of a hip fracture was significantly higher at 2 to 3 years of a risedronate holiday than after an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.34). 

There was no significant difference in the risk of any osteoporotic fracture overall (including hip, vertebrae, pelvis, ribs, forearm), however, during a 3-year risedronate versus alendronate drug holiday (HR, 1.07).

The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Hayes was supported by a CIHR doctoral research award. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

Myocardial inflammation is present in a small proportion of patients who have recovered from relatively mild cases of COVID-19 infection, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that even in patients who have had relatively mild cases of COVID-19, some will have inflammatory changes to the heart, and these changes can be present without any cardiac symptoms,” senior author, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, MD, University of Toronto, told this news organization.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

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

The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.

Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”

The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.

The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”

In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.

One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.

The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.

Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”

Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.

Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.

The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.

Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”

The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.

The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”

In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.

One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.

The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.

Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”

Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.

Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.

The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.

Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”

The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.

The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”

In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.

One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.

The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.

Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”

Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.

Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.

The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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