Commentary

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.

We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.

There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies. 

Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.

James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.

This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study. 

This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines. 

At baseline, their apnea-hypopnea index, or AHI, was greater than 50. At the end of the study, we saw that there was a mean reduction in the AHI by over 60%. That was a big reduction. 

Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?

Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.

What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death. 

We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.

Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely. 

Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.

Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day. 

Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.

Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA. 

What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. 

Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.

It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well. 

This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care. 

Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective. 

From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea. 

Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.

Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.

We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.

There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies. 

Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.

James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.

This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study. 

This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines. 

At baseline, their apnea-hypopnea index, or AHI, was greater than 50. At the end of the study, we saw that there was a mean reduction in the AHI by over 60%. That was a big reduction. 

Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?

Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.

What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death. 

We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.

Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely. 

Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.

Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day. 

Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.

Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA. 

What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. 

Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.

It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well. 

This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care. 

Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective. 

From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea. 

Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.

Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.

We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.

There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies. 

Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.

James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.

This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study. 

This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines. 

At baseline, their apnea-hypopnea index, or AHI, was greater than 50. At the end of the study, we saw that there was a mean reduction in the AHI by over 60%. That was a big reduction. 

Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?

Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.

What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death. 

We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.

Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely. 

Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.

Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day. 

Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.

Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA. 

What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. 

Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.

It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well. 

This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care. 

Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective. 

From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea. 

Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.

Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity has now reached epidemic proportions, with global prevalence of the condition increasing more than threefold between 1975 and 2022. In the United States alone, roughly two in five adults have obesity. As healthcare providers are intimately aware, obesity is linked to many serious health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, as well as some forms of cancer. As such, it presents a major challenge to chronic disease prevention and overall health.

For many years, management of obesity was considered within the purview of primary care as part of chronic disease management. However, as obesity has become more common, our understanding of the underlying causes of obesity has improved, and optimal strategies to manage and treat obesity have evolved. A new field of obesity medicine has arisen, attracting specialists such as gastroenterologists, surgeons, endocrinologists, and others. From glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists to an expanding armamentarium of bariatric procedures, emerging therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of patients with obesity and related health conditions.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Dr. Janese Laster, who has built a successful career with a primary focus on obesity medicine. She shares her passionate perspective on why gastroenterologists should play a more prominent role in management of this complex, chronic disease. We also include a summary of obesity-related content presented as part of this spring’s AGA Post-Graduate Course, with helpful clinical pearls from experts Dr. Andres Acosta, Dr. Violeta Popov, Dr. Sonali Paul, and Dr. Pooja Singhal.

Also in our September issue, we highlight a recent, practice-changing randomized controlled trial from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology supporting use of snare tip soft coagulation as the preferred thermal margin treatment to reduce recurrence rates following colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Maggie Ham and Dr. Petr Protiva offer their insights into a pressing question on many of our minds — whether to take the 10-year “high-stakes” exam or opt for the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment to maintain American Board of Internal Medicine certification. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Obesity has now reached epidemic proportions, with global prevalence of the condition increasing more than threefold between 1975 and 2022. In the United States alone, roughly two in five adults have obesity. As healthcare providers are intimately aware, obesity is linked to many serious health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, as well as some forms of cancer. As such, it presents a major challenge to chronic disease prevention and overall health.

For many years, management of obesity was considered within the purview of primary care as part of chronic disease management. However, as obesity has become more common, our understanding of the underlying causes of obesity has improved, and optimal strategies to manage and treat obesity have evolved. A new field of obesity medicine has arisen, attracting specialists such as gastroenterologists, surgeons, endocrinologists, and others. From glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists to an expanding armamentarium of bariatric procedures, emerging therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of patients with obesity and related health conditions.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Dr. Janese Laster, who has built a successful career with a primary focus on obesity medicine. She shares her passionate perspective on why gastroenterologists should play a more prominent role in management of this complex, chronic disease. We also include a summary of obesity-related content presented as part of this spring’s AGA Post-Graduate Course, with helpful clinical pearls from experts Dr. Andres Acosta, Dr. Violeta Popov, Dr. Sonali Paul, and Dr. Pooja Singhal.

Also in our September issue, we highlight a recent, practice-changing randomized controlled trial from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology supporting use of snare tip soft coagulation as the preferred thermal margin treatment to reduce recurrence rates following colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Maggie Ham and Dr. Petr Protiva offer their insights into a pressing question on many of our minds — whether to take the 10-year “high-stakes” exam or opt for the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment to maintain American Board of Internal Medicine certification. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Obesity has now reached epidemic proportions, with global prevalence of the condition increasing more than threefold between 1975 and 2022. In the United States alone, roughly two in five adults have obesity. As healthcare providers are intimately aware, obesity is linked to many serious health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, as well as some forms of cancer. As such, it presents a major challenge to chronic disease prevention and overall health.

For many years, management of obesity was considered within the purview of primary care as part of chronic disease management. However, as obesity has become more common, our understanding of the underlying causes of obesity has improved, and optimal strategies to manage and treat obesity have evolved. A new field of obesity medicine has arisen, attracting specialists such as gastroenterologists, surgeons, endocrinologists, and others. From glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists to an expanding armamentarium of bariatric procedures, emerging therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of patients with obesity and related health conditions.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Dr. Janese Laster, who has built a successful career with a primary focus on obesity medicine. She shares her passionate perspective on why gastroenterologists should play a more prominent role in management of this complex, chronic disease. We also include a summary of obesity-related content presented as part of this spring’s AGA Post-Graduate Course, with helpful clinical pearls from experts Dr. Andres Acosta, Dr. Violeta Popov, Dr. Sonali Paul, and Dr. Pooja Singhal.

Also in our September issue, we highlight a recent, practice-changing randomized controlled trial from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology supporting use of snare tip soft coagulation as the preferred thermal margin treatment to reduce recurrence rates following colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Maggie Ham and Dr. Petr Protiva offer their insights into a pressing question on many of our minds — whether to take the 10-year “high-stakes” exam or opt for the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment to maintain American Board of Internal Medicine certification. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Dear colleagues,

When the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) made changes to its recertification process, introducing its continuous Maintenance of Certification (MOC) in 2014, there was significant controversy across subspecialties. In response, the ABIM accreditation process has evolved. Currently, there remains the traditional 10-year MOC exam, and a newly introduced Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) where questions are answered every quarter. But which is the better one for you?

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Petr Protiva and Dr. Maggie Ham discuss their experiences with these differing assessment methods. Dr. Ham touches on the flexibility and convenience of the LKA, while Dr. Protiva writes about the benefits of the focused preparation and clear endpoint that the 10-year exam offers.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Traditional 10-Year ABIM Exam: A Personal Perspective

BY PETR PROTIVA, MD, MPH, AGAF

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers board certification in gastroenterology, a mark of professional excellence. Physicians can maintain their certification through the traditional 10-year examination or the newer Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

I completed my initial certification exam in 2003 and currently practice gastroenterology full time at the West Haven (Conn.) VA, where I am associate chief of gastroenterology, and the Yale School of Medicine. I am a clinician educator, running clinical trials and performing general and some advanced endoscopy.

Yale School of Medicine

As an academic gastroenterologist, I recertified in November 2023 using the traditional 10-year examination. An informal survey among my colleagues revealed that most opted for the LKA route. The traditional exam offers consistency, a clear endpoint, and a comprehensive review but comes with high stakes, significant preparation requirements, and potential for outdated information. In contrast, the LKA promotes continuous learning, flexibility, and immediate feedback, though it requires ongoing commitment. The LKA is generally perceived as the preferable option for maintaining and enhancing a current knowledge base.

In a highly academic environment with ample opportunities for learning and staying current with clinical science, the traditional exam’s drawbacks can be mitigated. My decision to opt for the 10-year exam was based on prior experience and the ease of accessing and maintaining knowledge in an academic setting. I considered the LKA as well, but there’s no clear answer as to which exam is “better.” The choice ultimately depends on individual physician preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. This piece recounts my experience with the 10-year recertification exam in 2023.
 

Preparing for the 10-Year Exam

In the year my recertification was due, I logged into my ABIM account to verify requirements and deadlines. After signing up for the recertification exam on the ABIM website, I was directed to the Pearson Vue website to select my testing center and date. The process was straightforward and glitch-free.

To fulfill the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) point requirements, it is necessary to systematically accumulate points through accredited Continuing Medical Education (CME) activities. The ABIM web portal indicates how many MOC points you are missing for the recertification cycle. I converted my UpToDate CME credits into ABIM MOC points, a straightforward process if you follow the necessary steps and keep your accounts updated.

Numerous resources are available for assessing and testing your knowledge prior to the exam. My first assessment included an online GI Board question bank, followed by a virtual Board Review Course. Next, I used the GI society-based Self-Assessment Test, which was well-suited for honing testing skills as well as reviewing the questions and answers in detail. Both the online question bank and GI society tests offered additional MOC points upon successful completion of practice exams. I also found it useful to reread guidelines in areas outside my usual practice and use UpToDate on an ongoing basis, like in everyday clinical practice. Completing the MOC requirements well ahead of my exam date was relatively easy.
 

Exam Experience

The exam itself is a 10-hour, grueling experience, but I was familiar with the format and expectations. The exam day was divided into several sessions, each containing a maximum of 60 multiple-choice questions, usually totaling 220 questions with an average of 2 minutes per question. The use of UpToDate is permitted during the recertification exam. While UpToDate is an excellent clinical resource, it cannot substitute for comprehensive knowledge. It is useful for verifying specific facts but cannot fill knowledge gaps during the exam.

Pros and Cons of the 10-Year Exam

Pros:

• Focused Preparation: Preparing for a single, comprehensive exam leads to an in-depth review of the entire subspecialty, reinforcing foundational knowledge and ensuring breadth in less familiar areas.
• Clear Endpoint: The 10-year exam offers a clear endpoint. Once passed, the certification is valid for the next decade, allowing focus on practice or academic endeavors without a need for ongoing assessments.
• Consistency: The standardized nature of the exam ensures consistency in the assessment process, with all physicians tested under the same conditions.
• Benchmarking: A decade-long interval provides a significant time frame for measuring knowledge and expertise, allowing comparison with other test takers.

Cons:

• High Stakes: The exam is high stakes, creating significant stress. Failure can have serious professional consequences, potentially affecting credentials and career.
• Rigidity: The fixed schedule offers little flexibility, requiring careful planning and preparation, which may not align with personal or professional circumstances.
• Comprehensive Nature: Extensive preparation is challenging for busy physicians. Balancing study time with clinical responsibilities can be difficult.
• Outdated Information: Medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and the 10-year interval may not reflect the most current practices, leading to gaps in knowledge.

Conclusion

While I cannot directly compare my experience to the LKA, the traditional 10-year exam has both strengths and weaknesses. It requires extensive preparation and is high stakes, but it offers a clear endpoint and comprehensive review. The choice between the 10-year exam and the LKA depends on individual preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. In an academic environment, the traditional exam can be a good option, but continuous medical education remains essential regardless of the recertification method chosen.

Dr. Protiva is associate chief of gastroenterology at the West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center, and associate professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. He has no disclosures related to this article.

The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment: Flexible and Convenient

BY MAGGIE HAM, MD, AGAF

I completed my initial certification exam in 2013 when I completed gastroenterology fellowship training at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. I am currently in clinical practice at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California, where I see patients and perform endoscopy daily.

I practice general gastroenterology and hepatology with an emphasis on inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer prevention, and women’s health. I am also the medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, physician in charge of a building at Kaiser, and assistant chief of gastroenterology. My husband and I are both gastroenterologists with a child in elementary school.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Two years ago, I decided to embark upon the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) for gastroenterology. This is offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) in lieu of the 10-year recertification examination. As a full-time working mother, I could not fathom the time it would take to study and sit down for the high-stakes 10-year exam.

The LKA consists of 30 questions per quarter, which equates to 600 questions over 5 years. One hundred questions may be skipped over the 5-year period. The questions can be answered from anywhere with an internet-connected device without any camera monitoring. I would often answer questions from the comfort of my own home using my laptop, but could also do so using my phone while waiting in line at the store or on a long plane ride. The 30 questions do not need to be answered in the same sitting, so within the quarter I can save my progress and answer the remaining questions at my convenience. This has worked well for me alongside my personal and professional obligations.

I can download my progress report which informs me of my score, and what the passing score is. I can see what the average score is, how I am performing relative to that, and how I am faring in each category (ie, esophagus, stomach and duodenum, liver, etc.). I also receive Maintenance of Certification points with each LKA question I answer correctly. With the 10-year ABIM recertification exam, I would still need to complete MOC.

While there is a 4-minute time limit for each question, it really has not been an issue. If needed, I can request to extend the time, to read or to look things up. It is an open book exam, so I have learned and kept abreast of GI knowledge. Any references other than another human may be used. I typically use UpToDate and the GI society guidelines, which have been sufficient. Occasionally there are experimental questions sprinkled throughout the exam, so I may never know the answer. Otherwise, the solution to each question will be presented to me immediately upon answering, with an explanation accompanied by references. I appreciate that this keeps me updated with the latest guidelines and recommendations, which was my primary reason for selecting the LKA.

At the end of the 5 years, you may choose to continue the LKA cycle, or take the 10-year exam. If you do not pass the LKA, they do give you a 1-year grace period to pass the exam if you want to continue to participate in MOC.

The quarter does seem to come around fairly quickly, but they do send frequent reminders by email or text as the deadline approaches. And if you forget to answer all the questions in a quarter, the LKA allows for 100 questions that may be skipped over the 5-year period.

Being able to answer questions from anywhere at any time is incredibly flexible and convenient. The immediate feedback is also great and helps me identify my strengths and weaknesses. While I will not know until the end of the 5-year period whether I have passed or not, I can check my progress report which gives me an idea of where I stand. Overall, I would say I am satisfied with the LKA, as it has been easy to maintain certification while effectively contributing to my continuing medical education.

Dr. Ham is a gastroenterologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California. She is also medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Southern Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura. She has no disclosures related to this article.

Dear colleagues,

When the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) made changes to its recertification process, introducing its continuous Maintenance of Certification (MOC) in 2014, there was significant controversy across subspecialties. In response, the ABIM accreditation process has evolved. Currently, there remains the traditional 10-year MOC exam, and a newly introduced Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) where questions are answered every quarter. But which is the better one for you?

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Petr Protiva and Dr. Maggie Ham discuss their experiences with these differing assessment methods. Dr. Ham touches on the flexibility and convenience of the LKA, while Dr. Protiva writes about the benefits of the focused preparation and clear endpoint that the 10-year exam offers.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Traditional 10-Year ABIM Exam: A Personal Perspective

BY PETR PROTIVA, MD, MPH, AGAF

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers board certification in gastroenterology, a mark of professional excellence. Physicians can maintain their certification through the traditional 10-year examination or the newer Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

I completed my initial certification exam in 2003 and currently practice gastroenterology full time at the West Haven (Conn.) VA, where I am associate chief of gastroenterology, and the Yale School of Medicine. I am a clinician educator, running clinical trials and performing general and some advanced endoscopy.

Yale School of Medicine

As an academic gastroenterologist, I recertified in November 2023 using the traditional 10-year examination. An informal survey among my colleagues revealed that most opted for the LKA route. The traditional exam offers consistency, a clear endpoint, and a comprehensive review but comes with high stakes, significant preparation requirements, and potential for outdated information. In contrast, the LKA promotes continuous learning, flexibility, and immediate feedback, though it requires ongoing commitment. The LKA is generally perceived as the preferable option for maintaining and enhancing a current knowledge base.

In a highly academic environment with ample opportunities for learning and staying current with clinical science, the traditional exam’s drawbacks can be mitigated. My decision to opt for the 10-year exam was based on prior experience and the ease of accessing and maintaining knowledge in an academic setting. I considered the LKA as well, but there’s no clear answer as to which exam is “better.” The choice ultimately depends on individual physician preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. This piece recounts my experience with the 10-year recertification exam in 2023.
 

Preparing for the 10-Year Exam

In the year my recertification was due, I logged into my ABIM account to verify requirements and deadlines. After signing up for the recertification exam on the ABIM website, I was directed to the Pearson Vue website to select my testing center and date. The process was straightforward and glitch-free.

To fulfill the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) point requirements, it is necessary to systematically accumulate points through accredited Continuing Medical Education (CME) activities. The ABIM web portal indicates how many MOC points you are missing for the recertification cycle. I converted my UpToDate CME credits into ABIM MOC points, a straightforward process if you follow the necessary steps and keep your accounts updated.

Numerous resources are available for assessing and testing your knowledge prior to the exam. My first assessment included an online GI Board question bank, followed by a virtual Board Review Course. Next, I used the GI society-based Self-Assessment Test, which was well-suited for honing testing skills as well as reviewing the questions and answers in detail. Both the online question bank and GI society tests offered additional MOC points upon successful completion of practice exams. I also found it useful to reread guidelines in areas outside my usual practice and use UpToDate on an ongoing basis, like in everyday clinical practice. Completing the MOC requirements well ahead of my exam date was relatively easy.
 

Exam Experience

The exam itself is a 10-hour, grueling experience, but I was familiar with the format and expectations. The exam day was divided into several sessions, each containing a maximum of 60 multiple-choice questions, usually totaling 220 questions with an average of 2 minutes per question. The use of UpToDate is permitted during the recertification exam. While UpToDate is an excellent clinical resource, it cannot substitute for comprehensive knowledge. It is useful for verifying specific facts but cannot fill knowledge gaps during the exam.

Pros and Cons of the 10-Year Exam

Pros:

• Focused Preparation: Preparing for a single, comprehensive exam leads to an in-depth review of the entire subspecialty, reinforcing foundational knowledge and ensuring breadth in less familiar areas.
• Clear Endpoint: The 10-year exam offers a clear endpoint. Once passed, the certification is valid for the next decade, allowing focus on practice or academic endeavors without a need for ongoing assessments.
• Consistency: The standardized nature of the exam ensures consistency in the assessment process, with all physicians tested under the same conditions.
• Benchmarking: A decade-long interval provides a significant time frame for measuring knowledge and expertise, allowing comparison with other test takers.

Cons:

• High Stakes: The exam is high stakes, creating significant stress. Failure can have serious professional consequences, potentially affecting credentials and career.
• Rigidity: The fixed schedule offers little flexibility, requiring careful planning and preparation, which may not align with personal or professional circumstances.
• Comprehensive Nature: Extensive preparation is challenging for busy physicians. Balancing study time with clinical responsibilities can be difficult.
• Outdated Information: Medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and the 10-year interval may not reflect the most current practices, leading to gaps in knowledge.

Conclusion

While I cannot directly compare my experience to the LKA, the traditional 10-year exam has both strengths and weaknesses. It requires extensive preparation and is high stakes, but it offers a clear endpoint and comprehensive review. The choice between the 10-year exam and the LKA depends on individual preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. In an academic environment, the traditional exam can be a good option, but continuous medical education remains essential regardless of the recertification method chosen.

Dr. Protiva is associate chief of gastroenterology at the West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center, and associate professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. He has no disclosures related to this article.

The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment: Flexible and Convenient

BY MAGGIE HAM, MD, AGAF

I completed my initial certification exam in 2013 when I completed gastroenterology fellowship training at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. I am currently in clinical practice at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California, where I see patients and perform endoscopy daily.

I practice general gastroenterology and hepatology with an emphasis on inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer prevention, and women’s health. I am also the medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, physician in charge of a building at Kaiser, and assistant chief of gastroenterology. My husband and I are both gastroenterologists with a child in elementary school.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Two years ago, I decided to embark upon the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) for gastroenterology. This is offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) in lieu of the 10-year recertification examination. As a full-time working mother, I could not fathom the time it would take to study and sit down for the high-stakes 10-year exam.

The LKA consists of 30 questions per quarter, which equates to 600 questions over 5 years. One hundred questions may be skipped over the 5-year period. The questions can be answered from anywhere with an internet-connected device without any camera monitoring. I would often answer questions from the comfort of my own home using my laptop, but could also do so using my phone while waiting in line at the store or on a long plane ride. The 30 questions do not need to be answered in the same sitting, so within the quarter I can save my progress and answer the remaining questions at my convenience. This has worked well for me alongside my personal and professional obligations.

I can download my progress report which informs me of my score, and what the passing score is. I can see what the average score is, how I am performing relative to that, and how I am faring in each category (ie, esophagus, stomach and duodenum, liver, etc.). I also receive Maintenance of Certification points with each LKA question I answer correctly. With the 10-year ABIM recertification exam, I would still need to complete MOC.

While there is a 4-minute time limit for each question, it really has not been an issue. If needed, I can request to extend the time, to read or to look things up. It is an open book exam, so I have learned and kept abreast of GI knowledge. Any references other than another human may be used. I typically use UpToDate and the GI society guidelines, which have been sufficient. Occasionally there are experimental questions sprinkled throughout the exam, so I may never know the answer. Otherwise, the solution to each question will be presented to me immediately upon answering, with an explanation accompanied by references. I appreciate that this keeps me updated with the latest guidelines and recommendations, which was my primary reason for selecting the LKA.

At the end of the 5 years, you may choose to continue the LKA cycle, or take the 10-year exam. If you do not pass the LKA, they do give you a 1-year grace period to pass the exam if you want to continue to participate in MOC.

The quarter does seem to come around fairly quickly, but they do send frequent reminders by email or text as the deadline approaches. And if you forget to answer all the questions in a quarter, the LKA allows for 100 questions that may be skipped over the 5-year period.

Being able to answer questions from anywhere at any time is incredibly flexible and convenient. The immediate feedback is also great and helps me identify my strengths and weaknesses. While I will not know until the end of the 5-year period whether I have passed or not, I can check my progress report which gives me an idea of where I stand. Overall, I would say I am satisfied with the LKA, as it has been easy to maintain certification while effectively contributing to my continuing medical education.

Dr. Ham is a gastroenterologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California. She is also medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Southern Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura. She has no disclosures related to this article.

Dear colleagues,

When the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) made changes to its recertification process, introducing its continuous Maintenance of Certification (MOC) in 2014, there was significant controversy across subspecialties. In response, the ABIM accreditation process has evolved. Currently, there remains the traditional 10-year MOC exam, and a newly introduced Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) where questions are answered every quarter. But which is the better one for you?

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Petr Protiva and Dr. Maggie Ham discuss their experiences with these differing assessment methods. Dr. Ham touches on the flexibility and convenience of the LKA, while Dr. Protiva writes about the benefits of the focused preparation and clear endpoint that the 10-year exam offers.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Traditional 10-Year ABIM Exam: A Personal Perspective

BY PETR PROTIVA, MD, MPH, AGAF

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers board certification in gastroenterology, a mark of professional excellence. Physicians can maintain their certification through the traditional 10-year examination or the newer Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

I completed my initial certification exam in 2003 and currently practice gastroenterology full time at the West Haven (Conn.) VA, where I am associate chief of gastroenterology, and the Yale School of Medicine. I am a clinician educator, running clinical trials and performing general and some advanced endoscopy.

Yale School of Medicine

As an academic gastroenterologist, I recertified in November 2023 using the traditional 10-year examination. An informal survey among my colleagues revealed that most opted for the LKA route. The traditional exam offers consistency, a clear endpoint, and a comprehensive review but comes with high stakes, significant preparation requirements, and potential for outdated information. In contrast, the LKA promotes continuous learning, flexibility, and immediate feedback, though it requires ongoing commitment. The LKA is generally perceived as the preferable option for maintaining and enhancing a current knowledge base.

In a highly academic environment with ample opportunities for learning and staying current with clinical science, the traditional exam’s drawbacks can be mitigated. My decision to opt for the 10-year exam was based on prior experience and the ease of accessing and maintaining knowledge in an academic setting. I considered the LKA as well, but there’s no clear answer as to which exam is “better.” The choice ultimately depends on individual physician preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. This piece recounts my experience with the 10-year recertification exam in 2023.
 

Preparing for the 10-Year Exam

In the year my recertification was due, I logged into my ABIM account to verify requirements and deadlines. After signing up for the recertification exam on the ABIM website, I was directed to the Pearson Vue website to select my testing center and date. The process was straightforward and glitch-free.

To fulfill the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) point requirements, it is necessary to systematically accumulate points through accredited Continuing Medical Education (CME) activities. The ABIM web portal indicates how many MOC points you are missing for the recertification cycle. I converted my UpToDate CME credits into ABIM MOC points, a straightforward process if you follow the necessary steps and keep your accounts updated.

Numerous resources are available for assessing and testing your knowledge prior to the exam. My first assessment included an online GI Board question bank, followed by a virtual Board Review Course. Next, I used the GI society-based Self-Assessment Test, which was well-suited for honing testing skills as well as reviewing the questions and answers in detail. Both the online question bank and GI society tests offered additional MOC points upon successful completion of practice exams. I also found it useful to reread guidelines in areas outside my usual practice and use UpToDate on an ongoing basis, like in everyday clinical practice. Completing the MOC requirements well ahead of my exam date was relatively easy.
 

Exam Experience

The exam itself is a 10-hour, grueling experience, but I was familiar with the format and expectations. The exam day was divided into several sessions, each containing a maximum of 60 multiple-choice questions, usually totaling 220 questions with an average of 2 minutes per question. The use of UpToDate is permitted during the recertification exam. While UpToDate is an excellent clinical resource, it cannot substitute for comprehensive knowledge. It is useful for verifying specific facts but cannot fill knowledge gaps during the exam.

Pros and Cons of the 10-Year Exam

Pros:

• Focused Preparation: Preparing for a single, comprehensive exam leads to an in-depth review of the entire subspecialty, reinforcing foundational knowledge and ensuring breadth in less familiar areas.
• Clear Endpoint: The 10-year exam offers a clear endpoint. Once passed, the certification is valid for the next decade, allowing focus on practice or academic endeavors without a need for ongoing assessments.
• Consistency: The standardized nature of the exam ensures consistency in the assessment process, with all physicians tested under the same conditions.
• Benchmarking: A decade-long interval provides a significant time frame for measuring knowledge and expertise, allowing comparison with other test takers.

Cons:

• High Stakes: The exam is high stakes, creating significant stress. Failure can have serious professional consequences, potentially affecting credentials and career.
• Rigidity: The fixed schedule offers little flexibility, requiring careful planning and preparation, which may not align with personal or professional circumstances.
• Comprehensive Nature: Extensive preparation is challenging for busy physicians. Balancing study time with clinical responsibilities can be difficult.
• Outdated Information: Medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and the 10-year interval may not reflect the most current practices, leading to gaps in knowledge.

Conclusion

While I cannot directly compare my experience to the LKA, the traditional 10-year exam has both strengths and weaknesses. It requires extensive preparation and is high stakes, but it offers a clear endpoint and comprehensive review. The choice between the 10-year exam and the LKA depends on individual preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. In an academic environment, the traditional exam can be a good option, but continuous medical education remains essential regardless of the recertification method chosen.

Dr. Protiva is associate chief of gastroenterology at the West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center, and associate professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. He has no disclosures related to this article.

The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment: Flexible and Convenient

BY MAGGIE HAM, MD, AGAF

I completed my initial certification exam in 2013 when I completed gastroenterology fellowship training at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. I am currently in clinical practice at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California, where I see patients and perform endoscopy daily.

I practice general gastroenterology and hepatology with an emphasis on inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer prevention, and women’s health. I am also the medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, physician in charge of a building at Kaiser, and assistant chief of gastroenterology. My husband and I are both gastroenterologists with a child in elementary school.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Two years ago, I decided to embark upon the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) for gastroenterology. This is offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) in lieu of the 10-year recertification examination. As a full-time working mother, I could not fathom the time it would take to study and sit down for the high-stakes 10-year exam.

The LKA consists of 30 questions per quarter, which equates to 600 questions over 5 years. One hundred questions may be skipped over the 5-year period. The questions can be answered from anywhere with an internet-connected device without any camera monitoring. I would often answer questions from the comfort of my own home using my laptop, but could also do so using my phone while waiting in line at the store or on a long plane ride. The 30 questions do not need to be answered in the same sitting, so within the quarter I can save my progress and answer the remaining questions at my convenience. This has worked well for me alongside my personal and professional obligations.

I can download my progress report which informs me of my score, and what the passing score is. I can see what the average score is, how I am performing relative to that, and how I am faring in each category (ie, esophagus, stomach and duodenum, liver, etc.). I also receive Maintenance of Certification points with each LKA question I answer correctly. With the 10-year ABIM recertification exam, I would still need to complete MOC.

While there is a 4-minute time limit for each question, it really has not been an issue. If needed, I can request to extend the time, to read or to look things up. It is an open book exam, so I have learned and kept abreast of GI knowledge. Any references other than another human may be used. I typically use UpToDate and the GI society guidelines, which have been sufficient. Occasionally there are experimental questions sprinkled throughout the exam, so I may never know the answer. Otherwise, the solution to each question will be presented to me immediately upon answering, with an explanation accompanied by references. I appreciate that this keeps me updated with the latest guidelines and recommendations, which was my primary reason for selecting the LKA.

At the end of the 5 years, you may choose to continue the LKA cycle, or take the 10-year exam. If you do not pass the LKA, they do give you a 1-year grace period to pass the exam if you want to continue to participate in MOC.

The quarter does seem to come around fairly quickly, but they do send frequent reminders by email or text as the deadline approaches. And if you forget to answer all the questions in a quarter, the LKA allows for 100 questions that may be skipped over the 5-year period.

Being able to answer questions from anywhere at any time is incredibly flexible and convenient. The immediate feedback is also great and helps me identify my strengths and weaknesses. While I will not know until the end of the 5-year period whether I have passed or not, I can check my progress report which gives me an idea of where I stand. Overall, I would say I am satisfied with the LKA, as it has been easy to maintain certification while effectively contributing to my continuing medical education.

Dr. Ham is a gastroenterologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California. She is also medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Southern Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura. She has no disclosures related to this article.

The global dietary supplement industry generates more than $400 billion a year. Supplements are alleged to treat many health concerns, from immune conditions and cognition to sexual dysfunction and premature wrinkles. Although some supplements have been proven to be helpful, others have no scientific basis.

I can preach all day that a healthy diet rarely needs supplementation. But even as a dietitian, I find it difficult to consistently eat a diet that is both sufficiently varied and adequate to provide for all my nutrition needs. Our patients with kidney disease, surely, are not immune to this plight. They may even be more inclined to nutrient deficiencies, as poor diet is linked to increased incidence and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

I find that patients with kidney disease often have an interest in dietary supplementation, even those with a well-rounded diet. Though we can discourage the use of supplements, or at the very least encourage patient transparency regarding supplement use, many will continue dietary supplementation at the suggestion of their friends, family, or even their preferred daytime talk show host. 

What these patients truly require is education on using supplements that are most beneficial to them. By recommending supplements that address patients’ pain points like inflammation, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular health, and reduced progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), we can improve patient health and, hopefully, decrease use of questionable supplements.
 

Probiotics

Although probiotics have been used in the treatment of digestive issues for many years, the gut-kidney axis is only recently being explored. Studies show that the microbiota of patients with CKD is altered, even in the early stages of disease, producing additional inflammation and metabolic dysfunction. This can be remedied, or at least alleviated, by introducing a probiotic supplement.

Some probiotics have been shown to decrease inflammation, decrease fasting blood glucose, decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, increase estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), decrease blood urea nitrogen and urea, and decrease uric acid

Probiotic-rich foods like kimchi or fermented pickles may not be appropriate because of excessive sodium content or simply because of patient preference — kombucha isn’t for everyone. However, adding a probiotic supplement can improve gut microbiota without undermining dietary concerns. 

When recommending probiotics, patients should be educated to ensure that their probiotic has strains that have been proven to be beneficial for kidney health. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, ^{Bifidobacterium} species, and Streptococcus thermophilus have been shown to have a positive effect on kidney health and decreasing progression of CKD at a dosage of 109 colony-forming units per day.
 

Fish Oil

Though nephrology and cardiology are separate fields, it cannot be overstated that kidney patients are also heart patients. 

Patients with CKD and an eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²are most likely to die from cardiovascular causes, and this likelihood increases as eGFR decreases. CKD-associated dyslipidemia results in elevated triglycerides and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol often accompanied by proteinuria, and has been linked to an increase in atherosclerosis.

A simple fish oil supplement can work to decrease oxidative stress, relieve inflammation, and improve serum lipids, leading to improved kidney and cardiovascular health. One meta-analysis found that high-dose fish oil supplementation, though it had no effect on serum creatinine or eGFR, was associated with a lower risk for proteinuria and progression to ESRD. 

Fish oil’s popularity in recent years bodes well for the kidney patient. It is now easily obtained over the counter in high doses to meet the recommended adequate intake of omega-3s, which is 1100 mg/d for women and 1600 mg/d for men. There are also more burpless varieties of these supplements to increase compliance. 
 

Vitamin D

Patients with renal disease are prone to vitamin D deficiency through inadequate intake and limited sunlight, which is exacerbated by the diseased kidney’s inability to effectively convert calcidiol to calcitriol. Vitamin D deficiency is linked to poor bone health, fatigue, muscle pain, impaired wound healing, and depression. Low vitamin D status has also been linked to poor outcomes in cancer, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.

A meta-analysis of over 6000 patients with CKD found that high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) are associated with significantly improved survival rates regardless of CKD or ESRD status. 

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to correct (OH)D deficiency. This ensures adequate supply for conversion to calcitriol, but it cannot affect bone and mineral metabolism without further intervention in the form of calcitriol supplementation. By supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to meet the recommended daily allowance of 15 µg (600 IU) for adults under 70 years and 20 µg (800 IU) for adults over 70 years, the primary care team can ensure that the body has all the building blocks required for the nephrology team to then address mineral and bone disorder in CKD without the fear of promoting hypercalcemia. 
 

Safe Purchasing Practices

Patients should be reminded to purchase dietary supplements from reputable dealers, especially when purchasing online. Retailers like Amazon are increasing the barriers required to sell supplements to improve the quality of products sold on the site. But other online retailers may sell products from outside of the United States that fall outside of the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction. 

Patients should also be reminded that “more is not always better” and counseled on appropriate dosages for individual needs. 
 

In Summary

Patients will probably continue to lean on dietary supplements, regardless of our approval. Transparency and education are important when working with patients with CKD, especially in regard to dietary supplements. 

When recommended appropriately, however, the supplements discussed can lead to better outcomes with improvements in kidney health by addressing inflammation, serum lipids, glycemic control, and cardiovascular health.

Ms. Winfree Root is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The global dietary supplement industry generates more than $400 billion a year. Supplements are alleged to treat many health concerns, from immune conditions and cognition to sexual dysfunction and premature wrinkles. Although some supplements have been proven to be helpful, others have no scientific basis.

I can preach all day that a healthy diet rarely needs supplementation. But even as a dietitian, I find it difficult to consistently eat a diet that is both sufficiently varied and adequate to provide for all my nutrition needs. Our patients with kidney disease, surely, are not immune to this plight. They may even be more inclined to nutrient deficiencies, as poor diet is linked to increased incidence and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

I find that patients with kidney disease often have an interest in dietary supplementation, even those with a well-rounded diet. Though we can discourage the use of supplements, or at the very least encourage patient transparency regarding supplement use, many will continue dietary supplementation at the suggestion of their friends, family, or even their preferred daytime talk show host. 

What these patients truly require is education on using supplements that are most beneficial to them. By recommending supplements that address patients’ pain points like inflammation, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular health, and reduced progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), we can improve patient health and, hopefully, decrease use of questionable supplements.
 

Probiotics

Although probiotics have been used in the treatment of digestive issues for many years, the gut-kidney axis is only recently being explored. Studies show that the microbiota of patients with CKD is altered, even in the early stages of disease, producing additional inflammation and metabolic dysfunction. This can be remedied, or at least alleviated, by introducing a probiotic supplement.

Some probiotics have been shown to decrease inflammation, decrease fasting blood glucose, decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, increase estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), decrease blood urea nitrogen and urea, and decrease uric acid

Probiotic-rich foods like kimchi or fermented pickles may not be appropriate because of excessive sodium content or simply because of patient preference — kombucha isn’t for everyone. However, adding a probiotic supplement can improve gut microbiota without undermining dietary concerns. 

When recommending probiotics, patients should be educated to ensure that their probiotic has strains that have been proven to be beneficial for kidney health. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, ^{Bifidobacterium} species, and Streptococcus thermophilus have been shown to have a positive effect on kidney health and decreasing progression of CKD at a dosage of 109 colony-forming units per day.
 

Fish Oil

Though nephrology and cardiology are separate fields, it cannot be overstated that kidney patients are also heart patients. 

Patients with CKD and an eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²are most likely to die from cardiovascular causes, and this likelihood increases as eGFR decreases. CKD-associated dyslipidemia results in elevated triglycerides and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol often accompanied by proteinuria, and has been linked to an increase in atherosclerosis.

A simple fish oil supplement can work to decrease oxidative stress, relieve inflammation, and improve serum lipids, leading to improved kidney and cardiovascular health. One meta-analysis found that high-dose fish oil supplementation, though it had no effect on serum creatinine or eGFR, was associated with a lower risk for proteinuria and progression to ESRD. 

Fish oil’s popularity in recent years bodes well for the kidney patient. It is now easily obtained over the counter in high doses to meet the recommended adequate intake of omega-3s, which is 1100 mg/d for women and 1600 mg/d for men. There are also more burpless varieties of these supplements to increase compliance. 
 

Vitamin D

Patients with renal disease are prone to vitamin D deficiency through inadequate intake and limited sunlight, which is exacerbated by the diseased kidney’s inability to effectively convert calcidiol to calcitriol. Vitamin D deficiency is linked to poor bone health, fatigue, muscle pain, impaired wound healing, and depression. Low vitamin D status has also been linked to poor outcomes in cancer, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.

A meta-analysis of over 6000 patients with CKD found that high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) are associated with significantly improved survival rates regardless of CKD or ESRD status. 

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to correct (OH)D deficiency. This ensures adequate supply for conversion to calcitriol, but it cannot affect bone and mineral metabolism without further intervention in the form of calcitriol supplementation. By supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to meet the recommended daily allowance of 15 µg (600 IU) for adults under 70 years and 20 µg (800 IU) for adults over 70 years, the primary care team can ensure that the body has all the building blocks required for the nephrology team to then address mineral and bone disorder in CKD without the fear of promoting hypercalcemia. 
 

Safe Purchasing Practices

Patients should be reminded to purchase dietary supplements from reputable dealers, especially when purchasing online. Retailers like Amazon are increasing the barriers required to sell supplements to improve the quality of products sold on the site. But other online retailers may sell products from outside of the United States that fall outside of the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction. 

Patients should also be reminded that “more is not always better” and counseled on appropriate dosages for individual needs. 
 

In Summary

Patients will probably continue to lean on dietary supplements, regardless of our approval. Transparency and education are important when working with patients with CKD, especially in regard to dietary supplements. 

When recommended appropriately, however, the supplements discussed can lead to better outcomes with improvements in kidney health by addressing inflammation, serum lipids, glycemic control, and cardiovascular health.

Ms. Winfree Root is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The global dietary supplement industry generates more than $400 billion a year. Supplements are alleged to treat many health concerns, from immune conditions and cognition to sexual dysfunction and premature wrinkles. Although some supplements have been proven to be helpful, others have no scientific basis.

I can preach all day that a healthy diet rarely needs supplementation. But even as a dietitian, I find it difficult to consistently eat a diet that is both sufficiently varied and adequate to provide for all my nutrition needs. Our patients with kidney disease, surely, are not immune to this plight. They may even be more inclined to nutrient deficiencies, as poor diet is linked to increased incidence and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

I find that patients with kidney disease often have an interest in dietary supplementation, even those with a well-rounded diet. Though we can discourage the use of supplements, or at the very least encourage patient transparency regarding supplement use, many will continue dietary supplementation at the suggestion of their friends, family, or even their preferred daytime talk show host. 

What these patients truly require is education on using supplements that are most beneficial to them. By recommending supplements that address patients’ pain points like inflammation, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular health, and reduced progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), we can improve patient health and, hopefully, decrease use of questionable supplements.
 

Probiotics

Although probiotics have been used in the treatment of digestive issues for many years, the gut-kidney axis is only recently being explored. Studies show that the microbiota of patients with CKD is altered, even in the early stages of disease, producing additional inflammation and metabolic dysfunction. This can be remedied, or at least alleviated, by introducing a probiotic supplement.

Some probiotics have been shown to decrease inflammation, decrease fasting blood glucose, decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, increase estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), decrease blood urea nitrogen and urea, and decrease uric acid

Probiotic-rich foods like kimchi or fermented pickles may not be appropriate because of excessive sodium content or simply because of patient preference — kombucha isn’t for everyone. However, adding a probiotic supplement can improve gut microbiota without undermining dietary concerns. 

When recommending probiotics, patients should be educated to ensure that their probiotic has strains that have been proven to be beneficial for kidney health. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, ^{Bifidobacterium} species, and Streptococcus thermophilus have been shown to have a positive effect on kidney health and decreasing progression of CKD at a dosage of 109 colony-forming units per day.
 

Fish Oil

Though nephrology and cardiology are separate fields, it cannot be overstated that kidney patients are also heart patients. 

Patients with CKD and an eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²are most likely to die from cardiovascular causes, and this likelihood increases as eGFR decreases. CKD-associated dyslipidemia results in elevated triglycerides and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol often accompanied by proteinuria, and has been linked to an increase in atherosclerosis.

A simple fish oil supplement can work to decrease oxidative stress, relieve inflammation, and improve serum lipids, leading to improved kidney and cardiovascular health. One meta-analysis found that high-dose fish oil supplementation, though it had no effect on serum creatinine or eGFR, was associated with a lower risk for proteinuria and progression to ESRD. 

Fish oil’s popularity in recent years bodes well for the kidney patient. It is now easily obtained over the counter in high doses to meet the recommended adequate intake of omega-3s, which is 1100 mg/d for women and 1600 mg/d for men. There are also more burpless varieties of these supplements to increase compliance. 
 

Vitamin D

Patients with renal disease are prone to vitamin D deficiency through inadequate intake and limited sunlight, which is exacerbated by the diseased kidney’s inability to effectively convert calcidiol to calcitriol. Vitamin D deficiency is linked to poor bone health, fatigue, muscle pain, impaired wound healing, and depression. Low vitamin D status has also been linked to poor outcomes in cancer, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.

A meta-analysis of over 6000 patients with CKD found that high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) are associated with significantly improved survival rates regardless of CKD or ESRD status. 

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to correct (OH)D deficiency. This ensures adequate supply for conversion to calcitriol, but it cannot affect bone and mineral metabolism without further intervention in the form of calcitriol supplementation. By supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to meet the recommended daily allowance of 15 µg (600 IU) for adults under 70 years and 20 µg (800 IU) for adults over 70 years, the primary care team can ensure that the body has all the building blocks required for the nephrology team to then address mineral and bone disorder in CKD without the fear of promoting hypercalcemia. 
 

Safe Purchasing Practices

Patients should be reminded to purchase dietary supplements from reputable dealers, especially when purchasing online. Retailers like Amazon are increasing the barriers required to sell supplements to improve the quality of products sold on the site. But other online retailers may sell products from outside of the United States that fall outside of the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction. 

Patients should also be reminded that “more is not always better” and counseled on appropriate dosages for individual needs. 
 

In Summary

Patients will probably continue to lean on dietary supplements, regardless of our approval. Transparency and education are important when working with patients with CKD, especially in regard to dietary supplements. 

When recommended appropriately, however, the supplements discussed can lead to better outcomes with improvements in kidney health by addressing inflammation, serum lipids, glycemic control, and cardiovascular health.

Ms. Winfree Root is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

Earlier in 2024 the American Headache Society issued a position statement that CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide) agents are a first-line option for migraine prevention.

No Shinola, Sherlock.

Any of us working frontline neurology have figured that out, including me. And I was, honestly, pretty skeptical of them when they hit the pharmacy shelves. But these days, to quote The Monkees (and Neil Diamond), “I’m a Believer.”

Unfortunately, things don’t quite work out that way. Just because a drug is clearly successful doesn’t make it practical to use first line. Most insurances won’t even let family doctors prescribe them, so they have to send patients to a neurologist (which I’m not complaining about).

Then me and my neuro-brethren have to jump through hoops because of their cost. One month of any of these drugs costs the same as a few years (or more) of generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Granted, I shouldn’t complain about that, either. If everyone with migraines was getting them it would drive up insurance premiums across the board — including mine.

So, after patients have tried and failed at least two to four other options (depending on their plan) I can usually get a CGRP covered. This involves filling out some forms online and submitting them ... then waiting.

Even if the drug is approved, and successful, that’s still not the end of the story. Depending on the plan I have to get them reauthorized anywhere from every 3 to 12 months. There’s also the chance that in December I’ll get a letter saying the drug won’t be covered starting January, and to try one of the recommended alternatives, like generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Having celebrities like Lady Gaga pushing them doesn’t help. The commercials never mention that getting the medication isn’t as easy as “ask your doctor.” Nor does it point out that Lady Gaga won’t have an issue with a CGRP agent’s price tag of $800-$1000 per month, while most of her fans need that money for rent and groceries.

The guidelines, in essence, are useful, but only apply to a perfect world where drug cost doesn’t matter. We aren’t in one. I’m not knocking the pharmaceutical companies — research and development take A LOT of money, and every drug that comes to market has to pay not only for itself, but for several others that failed. Innovation isn’t cheap.

That doesn’t make it any easier to explain to patients, who see ads, or news blurbs on Facebook, or whatever. I just wish the advertisements would have more transparency about how the pricing works.

After all, regardless of how good an automobile may be, don’t car ads show an MSRP?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Earlier in 2024 the American Headache Society issued a position statement that CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide) agents are a first-line option for migraine prevention.

No Shinola, Sherlock.

Any of us working frontline neurology have figured that out, including me. And I was, honestly, pretty skeptical of them when they hit the pharmacy shelves. But these days, to quote The Monkees (and Neil Diamond), “I’m a Believer.”

Unfortunately, things don’t quite work out that way. Just because a drug is clearly successful doesn’t make it practical to use first line. Most insurances won’t even let family doctors prescribe them, so they have to send patients to a neurologist (which I’m not complaining about).

Then me and my neuro-brethren have to jump through hoops because of their cost. One month of any of these drugs costs the same as a few years (or more) of generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Granted, I shouldn’t complain about that, either. If everyone with migraines was getting them it would drive up insurance premiums across the board — including mine.

So, after patients have tried and failed at least two to four other options (depending on their plan) I can usually get a CGRP covered. This involves filling out some forms online and submitting them ... then waiting.

Even if the drug is approved, and successful, that’s still not the end of the story. Depending on the plan I have to get them reauthorized anywhere from every 3 to 12 months. There’s also the chance that in December I’ll get a letter saying the drug won’t be covered starting January, and to try one of the recommended alternatives, like generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Having celebrities like Lady Gaga pushing them doesn’t help. The commercials never mention that getting the medication isn’t as easy as “ask your doctor.” Nor does it point out that Lady Gaga won’t have an issue with a CGRP agent’s price tag of $800-$1000 per month, while most of her fans need that money for rent and groceries.

The guidelines, in essence, are useful, but only apply to a perfect world where drug cost doesn’t matter. We aren’t in one. I’m not knocking the pharmaceutical companies — research and development take A LOT of money, and every drug that comes to market has to pay not only for itself, but for several others that failed. Innovation isn’t cheap.

That doesn’t make it any easier to explain to patients, who see ads, or news blurbs on Facebook, or whatever. I just wish the advertisements would have more transparency about how the pricing works.

After all, regardless of how good an automobile may be, don’t car ads show an MSRP?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Earlier in 2024 the American Headache Society issued a position statement that CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide) agents are a first-line option for migraine prevention.

No Shinola, Sherlock.

Any of us working frontline neurology have figured that out, including me. And I was, honestly, pretty skeptical of them when they hit the pharmacy shelves. But these days, to quote The Monkees (and Neil Diamond), “I’m a Believer.”

Unfortunately, things don’t quite work out that way. Just because a drug is clearly successful doesn’t make it practical to use first line. Most insurances won’t even let family doctors prescribe them, so they have to send patients to a neurologist (which I’m not complaining about).

Then me and my neuro-brethren have to jump through hoops because of their cost. One month of any of these drugs costs the same as a few years (or more) of generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Granted, I shouldn’t complain about that, either. If everyone with migraines was getting them it would drive up insurance premiums across the board — including mine.

So, after patients have tried and failed at least two to four other options (depending on their plan) I can usually get a CGRP covered. This involves filling out some forms online and submitting them ... then waiting.

Even if the drug is approved, and successful, that’s still not the end of the story. Depending on the plan I have to get them reauthorized anywhere from every 3 to 12 months. There’s also the chance that in December I’ll get a letter saying the drug won’t be covered starting January, and to try one of the recommended alternatives, like generic Topamax, Nortriptyline, Nadolol, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Having celebrities like Lady Gaga pushing them doesn’t help. The commercials never mention that getting the medication isn’t as easy as “ask your doctor.” Nor does it point out that Lady Gaga won’t have an issue with a CGRP agent’s price tag of $800-$1000 per month, while most of her fans need that money for rent and groceries.

The guidelines, in essence, are useful, but only apply to a perfect world where drug cost doesn’t matter. We aren’t in one. I’m not knocking the pharmaceutical companies — research and development take A LOT of money, and every drug that comes to market has to pay not only for itself, but for several others that failed. Innovation isn’t cheap.

That doesn’t make it any easier to explain to patients, who see ads, or news blurbs on Facebook, or whatever. I just wish the advertisements would have more transparency about how the pricing works.

After all, regardless of how good an automobile may be, don’t car ads show an MSRP?

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]