User login
How to Avoid the $400,000 Med School Debt Mistakes I Made
It’s not always great to be tops among your peers.
, according to Medscape Medical News’ 2023 Residents Salary and Debt Report.
I’m smack in that upper percentile. I amassed nearly a half million dollars in student debt and currently stand at roughly $400,000. Yay me.
As a naive twentysomething making a major life decision, I never thought my loans would amount to this inconceivable figure, the proverbial “mortgage without a roof” you hear student debt experts talk about.
This isn’t a story about how the student loan industry needs to be reformed or how education has become increasingly expensive or regrets about going to medical school.
It’s also not a story about how you should be handling basics like consolidating and refinancing and paying extra toward your principal.
It’s about my experience as a physician 13 years after signing that first promissory note. In short: I completely miscalculated the impact loans would have on my life.
I bought money to go to school. I can’t undo that. But over the past decade, I have learned a lot, particularly how those with their own mountain of debt — or who will inevitably wind up with one — can manage things better than I have.
Mistake #1: Loan Forgiveness Is More Complicated Than it Seems
My parents and I were aware of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program which began in 2007 shortly before I started exploring medical school options. I wanted to help people, so working in the nonprofit sector sounded like a no-brainer. Making 120 payments while practicing at a qualifying institution didn’t sound hard.
Newsflash: Not all healthcare organizations are 501(c)3 programs that qualify as nonprofit for the PSLF program. You can’t just snap your fingers and land at one. I graduated from fellowship just as the COVID-19 pandemic began, which meant I was launching my medical career in the midst of hiring freezes and an overnight disappearance of job opportunities.
I had to take a 2-year hiatus from the nonprofit sector and found a part-time position with a local private practice group. It still stings. Had I been working for a qualified employer, I could have benefited from the student loan payment pause and been closer to applying for loan forgiveness.
Avoid it: Be brutally honest with yourself about what kind of medicine you want to practice — especially within the opportunities you have on hand. Private practice is very different from working for the nonprofit sector. I didn›t know that. When weighing career choices, immediately ask, “How will this impact how I pay my loans?” You may not like the answer, but you›ll always know where you stand financially.
Mistake #2: I Forgot to Factor in Life Goals
To be fair, some things were out of my control: Not getting into a state school with cheaper tuition rates, graduating at the start of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. I wasn’t prepared for a changing job landscape. But there were also “expected” life events like getting married, developing a geographical preference, and having a child. I didn’t consider those either.
How about the “expected” goal of buying a home? For years I didn’t feel financially comfortable enough to take on a mortgage. For so long, my attitude has been don’t take on any more debt. (A special shout-out to my 6.8% interest rate which has contributed over a third of my total loan amount.)
This even affected how my husband and I would talk about what a future home might look like. There’s always a giant unwelcome guest casting a shadow over my thoughts.
Avoid it: Don’t compartmentalize your personal and professional lives. Your student loans will hang over both, and you need to be honest with yourself about what “upward mobility” really means to you while in debt. There’s a reason people say “live like a resident” until your loans are paid off. My husband and I finally worked our numbers to where we bought our first home this past year — a moment years in the making. I still drive around in my beloved Honda CR-V like it’s a Mercedes G-Wagon.
Mistake #3: I Didn’t Ask Questions
I regret not talking to a practicing physician about their experience with student loans. I didn’t know any. There weren’t any physicians in my extended family or my community network. I was a first-generation Pakistani American kid trying to figure it out.
It’s difficult because even today, many physicians aren’t comfortable discussing their financial circumstances. The lack of financial transparency and even financial literacy is astounding among young medical professionals. We live in a medical culture where no one talks about the money. I was too diffident and nervous to even try.
Avoid it: Don’t be afraid to have uncomfortable conversations about money. Don’t allow yourself to make even one passive decision. It’s your life.
If you can’t find someone in medicine to talk to about their financial journey, there are plenty of credible resources. Medscape Medical News has a Physician Business Academy with hot topics like personal finance. The White Coat Investor is literally bookmarked on all my electronic devices. KevinMD.com has a ton of resources and articles answering common financial questions about retirement, savings, and house buying. And Travis Hornsby with www.studentloanplanner.com has wonderful advice on all kinds of different loans.
There are no stupid questions. Just ask. You might be surprised by what people are willing to share.
Mistake #4: Playing it Casual With My Lenders
If $400,000 in debt doesn’t sound bad enough, imagine lots more. It turns out my loan carrier had me at a much higher loan balance because they’d inadvertently duplicated one of my loans in the total. I didn’t know that until I transferred my loans to another handler and it came to light.
Imagine my relief at having a lower total. Imagine my anger at myself for not checking sooner.
Avoid it: Do a thorough self-audit on all your loans more than once a year. Pretend they’re a patient with odd symptoms you can’t pin down and you have the luxury of doing every diagnostic test available. It’s not fun studying your own debt, but it’s the only way to really know how much you have.
Mistake #5: Not Leaving Room to Change My Mind
I underestimated how I would evolve and how my goals would change after having the letters “MD” after my name. I never dreamed that a nonprofit salary might not be enough.
A lot of us assume that the bedside is where we will find professional satisfaction. But you might be surprised. In a climate where we’re constantly being pushed to do more in a broken healthcare system, a landscape where misinformation and technology are forcing medicine to change, there might be little joy in working clinically full time. Then what do you do?
Because I elected to go the PSLF route, I’m tied to this decision. And while it still makes the most economic sense for me personally, it now limits my professional exploration and freedom.
Avoid it: Consider how much time you really want to spend in clinical medicine. Be mindful that you have to work at least 0.8 full time equivalent to qualify for the PSLF program. It’s very hard to predict the future, let alone your future, but just know you›ll have moments where you ask, “Do I really want to stay on this career track?” Will you be able to pivot? Can you live with it if the answer is no?
Looking Ahead
Let me be clear about one thing. Despite all the negativity I feel toward my student loans — guilt about the burden I brought to my marriage and my adult life, disappointment about the cost of becoming a successful physician, and frustration that this has turned out to be the most influential factor shaping my professional and personal choices — the one thing I don’t feel is shame.
I worked hard to get to this point in my life. I am proud of being a physician.
My student loan burden will follow me to the grave. But progress is also possible. I have friends that have paid their loans down by hustling, working hard, and dropping every penny toward them.
I also have friends that have had their loans forgiven. There are options. Everyone’s experience looks a little different. But don’t be naive: Student loans will color every financial decision you make.
I’m finding solace now in recently moving and finding work at a nonprofit institution. I’m back at it; 77 payments made, and 43 to go.
Well, technically I’ve made 93 payments. I’m still waiting for my loan servicer to get around to updating my account.
You really have to stay on top of those folks.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not always great to be tops among your peers.
, according to Medscape Medical News’ 2023 Residents Salary and Debt Report.
I’m smack in that upper percentile. I amassed nearly a half million dollars in student debt and currently stand at roughly $400,000. Yay me.
As a naive twentysomething making a major life decision, I never thought my loans would amount to this inconceivable figure, the proverbial “mortgage without a roof” you hear student debt experts talk about.
This isn’t a story about how the student loan industry needs to be reformed or how education has become increasingly expensive or regrets about going to medical school.
It’s also not a story about how you should be handling basics like consolidating and refinancing and paying extra toward your principal.
It’s about my experience as a physician 13 years after signing that first promissory note. In short: I completely miscalculated the impact loans would have on my life.
I bought money to go to school. I can’t undo that. But over the past decade, I have learned a lot, particularly how those with their own mountain of debt — or who will inevitably wind up with one — can manage things better than I have.
Mistake #1: Loan Forgiveness Is More Complicated Than it Seems
My parents and I were aware of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program which began in 2007 shortly before I started exploring medical school options. I wanted to help people, so working in the nonprofit sector sounded like a no-brainer. Making 120 payments while practicing at a qualifying institution didn’t sound hard.
Newsflash: Not all healthcare organizations are 501(c)3 programs that qualify as nonprofit for the PSLF program. You can’t just snap your fingers and land at one. I graduated from fellowship just as the COVID-19 pandemic began, which meant I was launching my medical career in the midst of hiring freezes and an overnight disappearance of job opportunities.
I had to take a 2-year hiatus from the nonprofit sector and found a part-time position with a local private practice group. It still stings. Had I been working for a qualified employer, I could have benefited from the student loan payment pause and been closer to applying for loan forgiveness.
Avoid it: Be brutally honest with yourself about what kind of medicine you want to practice — especially within the opportunities you have on hand. Private practice is very different from working for the nonprofit sector. I didn›t know that. When weighing career choices, immediately ask, “How will this impact how I pay my loans?” You may not like the answer, but you›ll always know where you stand financially.
Mistake #2: I Forgot to Factor in Life Goals
To be fair, some things were out of my control: Not getting into a state school with cheaper tuition rates, graduating at the start of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. I wasn’t prepared for a changing job landscape. But there were also “expected” life events like getting married, developing a geographical preference, and having a child. I didn’t consider those either.
How about the “expected” goal of buying a home? For years I didn’t feel financially comfortable enough to take on a mortgage. For so long, my attitude has been don’t take on any more debt. (A special shout-out to my 6.8% interest rate which has contributed over a third of my total loan amount.)
This even affected how my husband and I would talk about what a future home might look like. There’s always a giant unwelcome guest casting a shadow over my thoughts.
Avoid it: Don’t compartmentalize your personal and professional lives. Your student loans will hang over both, and you need to be honest with yourself about what “upward mobility” really means to you while in debt. There’s a reason people say “live like a resident” until your loans are paid off. My husband and I finally worked our numbers to where we bought our first home this past year — a moment years in the making. I still drive around in my beloved Honda CR-V like it’s a Mercedes G-Wagon.
Mistake #3: I Didn’t Ask Questions
I regret not talking to a practicing physician about their experience with student loans. I didn’t know any. There weren’t any physicians in my extended family or my community network. I was a first-generation Pakistani American kid trying to figure it out.
It’s difficult because even today, many physicians aren’t comfortable discussing their financial circumstances. The lack of financial transparency and even financial literacy is astounding among young medical professionals. We live in a medical culture where no one talks about the money. I was too diffident and nervous to even try.
Avoid it: Don’t be afraid to have uncomfortable conversations about money. Don’t allow yourself to make even one passive decision. It’s your life.
If you can’t find someone in medicine to talk to about their financial journey, there are plenty of credible resources. Medscape Medical News has a Physician Business Academy with hot topics like personal finance. The White Coat Investor is literally bookmarked on all my electronic devices. KevinMD.com has a ton of resources and articles answering common financial questions about retirement, savings, and house buying. And Travis Hornsby with www.studentloanplanner.com has wonderful advice on all kinds of different loans.
There are no stupid questions. Just ask. You might be surprised by what people are willing to share.
Mistake #4: Playing it Casual With My Lenders
If $400,000 in debt doesn’t sound bad enough, imagine lots more. It turns out my loan carrier had me at a much higher loan balance because they’d inadvertently duplicated one of my loans in the total. I didn’t know that until I transferred my loans to another handler and it came to light.
Imagine my relief at having a lower total. Imagine my anger at myself for not checking sooner.
Avoid it: Do a thorough self-audit on all your loans more than once a year. Pretend they’re a patient with odd symptoms you can’t pin down and you have the luxury of doing every diagnostic test available. It’s not fun studying your own debt, but it’s the only way to really know how much you have.
Mistake #5: Not Leaving Room to Change My Mind
I underestimated how I would evolve and how my goals would change after having the letters “MD” after my name. I never dreamed that a nonprofit salary might not be enough.
A lot of us assume that the bedside is where we will find professional satisfaction. But you might be surprised. In a climate where we’re constantly being pushed to do more in a broken healthcare system, a landscape where misinformation and technology are forcing medicine to change, there might be little joy in working clinically full time. Then what do you do?
Because I elected to go the PSLF route, I’m tied to this decision. And while it still makes the most economic sense for me personally, it now limits my professional exploration and freedom.
Avoid it: Consider how much time you really want to spend in clinical medicine. Be mindful that you have to work at least 0.8 full time equivalent to qualify for the PSLF program. It’s very hard to predict the future, let alone your future, but just know you›ll have moments where you ask, “Do I really want to stay on this career track?” Will you be able to pivot? Can you live with it if the answer is no?
Looking Ahead
Let me be clear about one thing. Despite all the negativity I feel toward my student loans — guilt about the burden I brought to my marriage and my adult life, disappointment about the cost of becoming a successful physician, and frustration that this has turned out to be the most influential factor shaping my professional and personal choices — the one thing I don’t feel is shame.
I worked hard to get to this point in my life. I am proud of being a physician.
My student loan burden will follow me to the grave. But progress is also possible. I have friends that have paid their loans down by hustling, working hard, and dropping every penny toward them.
I also have friends that have had their loans forgiven. There are options. Everyone’s experience looks a little different. But don’t be naive: Student loans will color every financial decision you make.
I’m finding solace now in recently moving and finding work at a nonprofit institution. I’m back at it; 77 payments made, and 43 to go.
Well, technically I’ve made 93 payments. I’m still waiting for my loan servicer to get around to updating my account.
You really have to stay on top of those folks.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s not always great to be tops among your peers.
, according to Medscape Medical News’ 2023 Residents Salary and Debt Report.
I’m smack in that upper percentile. I amassed nearly a half million dollars in student debt and currently stand at roughly $400,000. Yay me.
As a naive twentysomething making a major life decision, I never thought my loans would amount to this inconceivable figure, the proverbial “mortgage without a roof” you hear student debt experts talk about.
This isn’t a story about how the student loan industry needs to be reformed or how education has become increasingly expensive or regrets about going to medical school.
It’s also not a story about how you should be handling basics like consolidating and refinancing and paying extra toward your principal.
It’s about my experience as a physician 13 years after signing that first promissory note. In short: I completely miscalculated the impact loans would have on my life.
I bought money to go to school. I can’t undo that. But over the past decade, I have learned a lot, particularly how those with their own mountain of debt — or who will inevitably wind up with one — can manage things better than I have.
Mistake #1: Loan Forgiveness Is More Complicated Than it Seems
My parents and I were aware of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program which began in 2007 shortly before I started exploring medical school options. I wanted to help people, so working in the nonprofit sector sounded like a no-brainer. Making 120 payments while practicing at a qualifying institution didn’t sound hard.
Newsflash: Not all healthcare organizations are 501(c)3 programs that qualify as nonprofit for the PSLF program. You can’t just snap your fingers and land at one. I graduated from fellowship just as the COVID-19 pandemic began, which meant I was launching my medical career in the midst of hiring freezes and an overnight disappearance of job opportunities.
I had to take a 2-year hiatus from the nonprofit sector and found a part-time position with a local private practice group. It still stings. Had I been working for a qualified employer, I could have benefited from the student loan payment pause and been closer to applying for loan forgiveness.
Avoid it: Be brutally honest with yourself about what kind of medicine you want to practice — especially within the opportunities you have on hand. Private practice is very different from working for the nonprofit sector. I didn›t know that. When weighing career choices, immediately ask, “How will this impact how I pay my loans?” You may not like the answer, but you›ll always know where you stand financially.
Mistake #2: I Forgot to Factor in Life Goals
To be fair, some things were out of my control: Not getting into a state school with cheaper tuition rates, graduating at the start of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. I wasn’t prepared for a changing job landscape. But there were also “expected” life events like getting married, developing a geographical preference, and having a child. I didn’t consider those either.
How about the “expected” goal of buying a home? For years I didn’t feel financially comfortable enough to take on a mortgage. For so long, my attitude has been don’t take on any more debt. (A special shout-out to my 6.8% interest rate which has contributed over a third of my total loan amount.)
This even affected how my husband and I would talk about what a future home might look like. There’s always a giant unwelcome guest casting a shadow over my thoughts.
Avoid it: Don’t compartmentalize your personal and professional lives. Your student loans will hang over both, and you need to be honest with yourself about what “upward mobility” really means to you while in debt. There’s a reason people say “live like a resident” until your loans are paid off. My husband and I finally worked our numbers to where we bought our first home this past year — a moment years in the making. I still drive around in my beloved Honda CR-V like it’s a Mercedes G-Wagon.
Mistake #3: I Didn’t Ask Questions
I regret not talking to a practicing physician about their experience with student loans. I didn’t know any. There weren’t any physicians in my extended family or my community network. I was a first-generation Pakistani American kid trying to figure it out.
It’s difficult because even today, many physicians aren’t comfortable discussing their financial circumstances. The lack of financial transparency and even financial literacy is astounding among young medical professionals. We live in a medical culture where no one talks about the money. I was too diffident and nervous to even try.
Avoid it: Don’t be afraid to have uncomfortable conversations about money. Don’t allow yourself to make even one passive decision. It’s your life.
If you can’t find someone in medicine to talk to about their financial journey, there are plenty of credible resources. Medscape Medical News has a Physician Business Academy with hot topics like personal finance. The White Coat Investor is literally bookmarked on all my electronic devices. KevinMD.com has a ton of resources and articles answering common financial questions about retirement, savings, and house buying. And Travis Hornsby with www.studentloanplanner.com has wonderful advice on all kinds of different loans.
There are no stupid questions. Just ask. You might be surprised by what people are willing to share.
Mistake #4: Playing it Casual With My Lenders
If $400,000 in debt doesn’t sound bad enough, imagine lots more. It turns out my loan carrier had me at a much higher loan balance because they’d inadvertently duplicated one of my loans in the total. I didn’t know that until I transferred my loans to another handler and it came to light.
Imagine my relief at having a lower total. Imagine my anger at myself for not checking sooner.
Avoid it: Do a thorough self-audit on all your loans more than once a year. Pretend they’re a patient with odd symptoms you can’t pin down and you have the luxury of doing every diagnostic test available. It’s not fun studying your own debt, but it’s the only way to really know how much you have.
Mistake #5: Not Leaving Room to Change My Mind
I underestimated how I would evolve and how my goals would change after having the letters “MD” after my name. I never dreamed that a nonprofit salary might not be enough.
A lot of us assume that the bedside is where we will find professional satisfaction. But you might be surprised. In a climate where we’re constantly being pushed to do more in a broken healthcare system, a landscape where misinformation and technology are forcing medicine to change, there might be little joy in working clinically full time. Then what do you do?
Because I elected to go the PSLF route, I’m tied to this decision. And while it still makes the most economic sense for me personally, it now limits my professional exploration and freedom.
Avoid it: Consider how much time you really want to spend in clinical medicine. Be mindful that you have to work at least 0.8 full time equivalent to qualify for the PSLF program. It’s very hard to predict the future, let alone your future, but just know you›ll have moments where you ask, “Do I really want to stay on this career track?” Will you be able to pivot? Can you live with it if the answer is no?
Looking Ahead
Let me be clear about one thing. Despite all the negativity I feel toward my student loans — guilt about the burden I brought to my marriage and my adult life, disappointment about the cost of becoming a successful physician, and frustration that this has turned out to be the most influential factor shaping my professional and personal choices — the one thing I don’t feel is shame.
I worked hard to get to this point in my life. I am proud of being a physician.
My student loan burden will follow me to the grave. But progress is also possible. I have friends that have paid their loans down by hustling, working hard, and dropping every penny toward them.
I also have friends that have had their loans forgiven. There are options. Everyone’s experience looks a little different. But don’t be naive: Student loans will color every financial decision you make.
I’m finding solace now in recently moving and finding work at a nonprofit institution. I’m back at it; 77 payments made, and 43 to go.
Well, technically I’ve made 93 payments. I’m still waiting for my loan servicer to get around to updating my account.
You really have to stay on top of those folks.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘It’s Time’ to Empower Care for Patients With Obesity
A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.
For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!
I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.
Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.
One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.
As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.
They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.
As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.
Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.
However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.
In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.
Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.
We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.
We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.
The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.
How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.
It’s time.
Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.
For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!
I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.
Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.
One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.
As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.
They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.
As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.
Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.
However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.
In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.
Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.
We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.
We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.
The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.
How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.
It’s time.
Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.
For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!
I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.
Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.
One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.
As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.
They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.
As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.
Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.
However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.
In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.
Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.
We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.
We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.
The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.
How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.
It’s time.
Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Why I No Longer Remove Ingrown Toenails in Primary Care
A former colleague once told me that there are few primary care procedures more satisfying for the patient and physician than removing part of an ingrown toenail. I disagree, but I performed this procedure quite a few times during my residency and first few years in practice. The patient would usually have been in pain for days to weeks and have tried soaking their foot or putting wisps of cotton under the ingrown nail edge, without relief. I would draw up a syringe of lidocaine with epinephrine and perform a digital block on the affected toe. After waiting 5-10 minutes for the toe to become numb, I would clean the area, use a nail elevator to push the cuticle off the nail plate, and lift up the lateral edge of the plate. I would then cut the lateral edge with a nail splitter and remove the cut nail fragment with a hemostat. Finally, after an inspection to make sure that I hadn›t left any pieces behind, I or my nurse would apply petrolatum gauze and a bandage.
Adding up the time it took to obtain consent, wait for the local anesthetic to take effect, and do the procedure, it was more efficient for me to see two or three patients for medication checkups and refer toenail problems to a podiatrist instead. The same thing happened with circumcisions on infants who, for whatever reason, hadn›t had them done in the hospital. After a few years of doing these, I decided it would be easier to send these patients to pediatric urologists.
My choice to reduce my scope of practice during the early part of my career mirrored a national trend among graduating family medicine residents. I value the joint injections, laceration repairs, biopsies, and other skin procedures that remain in my repertoire for the change of pace and saving my patients more costly visits to specialists with long waiting lists. In fact, a previous study showed that family physicians who provide more comprehensive care generate lower healthcare spending and fewer hospitalizations than those with a narrower scope of practice.
A recent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, one of several alternative payment models that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has piloted over the past decade, found that it modestly reduced emergency department visits and inpatient costs but didn’t save money after accounting for additional dollars going to primary care. However, when researchers looked at six specific services — immunizations, behavioral counseling, laceration management, skin lesion removal, joint or tendon injections, and point-of-care ultrasound — they found that patients who saw physicians who provided more of these had lower care costs and sought less acute care outside of the office. On average, independent-practice physicians provided more services than physicians who practiced at sites affiliated with hospitals or health systems. That makes sense: While health systems bring in more income for procedures performed in their operating rooms and subspecialists› offices, private practices do better by keeping services in-house.
Supporting physicians in maintaining the broadest possible scope of practice is, in my opinion, the missing piece in the federal government’s initiatives to strengthen primary care. Investing in primary care training programs and paying practices for care coordination are necessary but insufficient steps if family physicians are expected to improve population health and bend the cost curve.
Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A former colleague once told me that there are few primary care procedures more satisfying for the patient and physician than removing part of an ingrown toenail. I disagree, but I performed this procedure quite a few times during my residency and first few years in practice. The patient would usually have been in pain for days to weeks and have tried soaking their foot or putting wisps of cotton under the ingrown nail edge, without relief. I would draw up a syringe of lidocaine with epinephrine and perform a digital block on the affected toe. After waiting 5-10 minutes for the toe to become numb, I would clean the area, use a nail elevator to push the cuticle off the nail plate, and lift up the lateral edge of the plate. I would then cut the lateral edge with a nail splitter and remove the cut nail fragment with a hemostat. Finally, after an inspection to make sure that I hadn›t left any pieces behind, I or my nurse would apply petrolatum gauze and a bandage.
Adding up the time it took to obtain consent, wait for the local anesthetic to take effect, and do the procedure, it was more efficient for me to see two or three patients for medication checkups and refer toenail problems to a podiatrist instead. The same thing happened with circumcisions on infants who, for whatever reason, hadn›t had them done in the hospital. After a few years of doing these, I decided it would be easier to send these patients to pediatric urologists.
My choice to reduce my scope of practice during the early part of my career mirrored a national trend among graduating family medicine residents. I value the joint injections, laceration repairs, biopsies, and other skin procedures that remain in my repertoire for the change of pace and saving my patients more costly visits to specialists with long waiting lists. In fact, a previous study showed that family physicians who provide more comprehensive care generate lower healthcare spending and fewer hospitalizations than those with a narrower scope of practice.
A recent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, one of several alternative payment models that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has piloted over the past decade, found that it modestly reduced emergency department visits and inpatient costs but didn’t save money after accounting for additional dollars going to primary care. However, when researchers looked at six specific services — immunizations, behavioral counseling, laceration management, skin lesion removal, joint or tendon injections, and point-of-care ultrasound — they found that patients who saw physicians who provided more of these had lower care costs and sought less acute care outside of the office. On average, independent-practice physicians provided more services than physicians who practiced at sites affiliated with hospitals or health systems. That makes sense: While health systems bring in more income for procedures performed in their operating rooms and subspecialists› offices, private practices do better by keeping services in-house.
Supporting physicians in maintaining the broadest possible scope of practice is, in my opinion, the missing piece in the federal government’s initiatives to strengthen primary care. Investing in primary care training programs and paying practices for care coordination are necessary but insufficient steps if family physicians are expected to improve population health and bend the cost curve.
Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A former colleague once told me that there are few primary care procedures more satisfying for the patient and physician than removing part of an ingrown toenail. I disagree, but I performed this procedure quite a few times during my residency and first few years in practice. The patient would usually have been in pain for days to weeks and have tried soaking their foot or putting wisps of cotton under the ingrown nail edge, without relief. I would draw up a syringe of lidocaine with epinephrine and perform a digital block on the affected toe. After waiting 5-10 minutes for the toe to become numb, I would clean the area, use a nail elevator to push the cuticle off the nail plate, and lift up the lateral edge of the plate. I would then cut the lateral edge with a nail splitter and remove the cut nail fragment with a hemostat. Finally, after an inspection to make sure that I hadn›t left any pieces behind, I or my nurse would apply petrolatum gauze and a bandage.
Adding up the time it took to obtain consent, wait for the local anesthetic to take effect, and do the procedure, it was more efficient for me to see two or three patients for medication checkups and refer toenail problems to a podiatrist instead. The same thing happened with circumcisions on infants who, for whatever reason, hadn›t had them done in the hospital. After a few years of doing these, I decided it would be easier to send these patients to pediatric urologists.
My choice to reduce my scope of practice during the early part of my career mirrored a national trend among graduating family medicine residents. I value the joint injections, laceration repairs, biopsies, and other skin procedures that remain in my repertoire for the change of pace and saving my patients more costly visits to specialists with long waiting lists. In fact, a previous study showed that family physicians who provide more comprehensive care generate lower healthcare spending and fewer hospitalizations than those with a narrower scope of practice.
A recent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, one of several alternative payment models that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has piloted over the past decade, found that it modestly reduced emergency department visits and inpatient costs but didn’t save money after accounting for additional dollars going to primary care. However, when researchers looked at six specific services — immunizations, behavioral counseling, laceration management, skin lesion removal, joint or tendon injections, and point-of-care ultrasound — they found that patients who saw physicians who provided more of these had lower care costs and sought less acute care outside of the office. On average, independent-practice physicians provided more services than physicians who practiced at sites affiliated with hospitals or health systems. That makes sense: While health systems bring in more income for procedures performed in their operating rooms and subspecialists› offices, private practices do better by keeping services in-house.
Supporting physicians in maintaining the broadest possible scope of practice is, in my opinion, the missing piece in the federal government’s initiatives to strengthen primary care. Investing in primary care training programs and paying practices for care coordination are necessary but insufficient steps if family physicians are expected to improve population health and bend the cost curve.
Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Iron Overload in Non-HFE Liver Disease: Not all Iron is Ready to Strike
Pathological iron overload with end-organ damage in hemochromatosis occurs in individuals who are homozygous for the major mutation C282Y. Phenotypic hemochromatosis occurs much less frequently in compound heterozygotes with one C282Y mutation and one H63D mutation. Iron overload can be confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging, which shows a loss of signal intensity in affected tissues and avoids the need for liver biopsy.
The serum ferritin level, an acute phase reactant, may be elevated for reasons other than iron overload, including infection and malignancy; in such cases, the iron saturation is usually normal. In patients with liver disease, iron overload is not restricted to patients with genetic hemochromatosis. In nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), up to one-third of patients have an elevated iron saturation (> 45%) and an elevated serum ferritin level. Iron accumulation in NAFLD can occur in hepatocytes, the reticuloendothelial system, or both. Deposition of iron in the reticuloendothelial system has been implicated in more severe liver disease (steatohepatitis and fibrosis) in NAFLD. Hepatic iron accumulation is also frequent in alcohol-associated liver disease. In chronic hepatitis B and C, accumulation of hepatic iron is also recognized.
Dr. Martin is chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases at the Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, where he is the Mandel Chair of Gastroenterology. Dr. Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, Chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Massachusetts, and assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University School of Medicine, all in Boston. The authors disclosed no conflicts. Previously published in Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.10.004.
Pathological iron overload with end-organ damage in hemochromatosis occurs in individuals who are homozygous for the major mutation C282Y. Phenotypic hemochromatosis occurs much less frequently in compound heterozygotes with one C282Y mutation and one H63D mutation. Iron overload can be confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging, which shows a loss of signal intensity in affected tissues and avoids the need for liver biopsy.
The serum ferritin level, an acute phase reactant, may be elevated for reasons other than iron overload, including infection and malignancy; in such cases, the iron saturation is usually normal. In patients with liver disease, iron overload is not restricted to patients with genetic hemochromatosis. In nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), up to one-third of patients have an elevated iron saturation (> 45%) and an elevated serum ferritin level. Iron accumulation in NAFLD can occur in hepatocytes, the reticuloendothelial system, or both. Deposition of iron in the reticuloendothelial system has been implicated in more severe liver disease (steatohepatitis and fibrosis) in NAFLD. Hepatic iron accumulation is also frequent in alcohol-associated liver disease. In chronic hepatitis B and C, accumulation of hepatic iron is also recognized.
Dr. Martin is chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases at the Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, where he is the Mandel Chair of Gastroenterology. Dr. Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, Chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Massachusetts, and assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University School of Medicine, all in Boston. The authors disclosed no conflicts. Previously published in Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.10.004.
Pathological iron overload with end-organ damage in hemochromatosis occurs in individuals who are homozygous for the major mutation C282Y. Phenotypic hemochromatosis occurs much less frequently in compound heterozygotes with one C282Y mutation and one H63D mutation. Iron overload can be confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging, which shows a loss of signal intensity in affected tissues and avoids the need for liver biopsy.
The serum ferritin level, an acute phase reactant, may be elevated for reasons other than iron overload, including infection and malignancy; in such cases, the iron saturation is usually normal. In patients with liver disease, iron overload is not restricted to patients with genetic hemochromatosis. In nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), up to one-third of patients have an elevated iron saturation (> 45%) and an elevated serum ferritin level. Iron accumulation in NAFLD can occur in hepatocytes, the reticuloendothelial system, or both. Deposition of iron in the reticuloendothelial system has been implicated in more severe liver disease (steatohepatitis and fibrosis) in NAFLD. Hepatic iron accumulation is also frequent in alcohol-associated liver disease. In chronic hepatitis B and C, accumulation of hepatic iron is also recognized.
Dr. Martin is chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases at the Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, where he is the Mandel Chair of Gastroenterology. Dr. Friedman is the Anton R. Fried, MD, Chair of the department of medicine at Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Newton, Massachusetts, and assistant chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University School of Medicine, all in Boston. The authors disclosed no conflicts. Previously published in Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Oct 12. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.10.004.
Guidelines Aren’t For Everybody
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
New Injectable Weight Loss Drugs Pose Ethical Issues, Says Ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.
These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.
There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.
What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.
Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.
It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.
My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.
The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.
We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.
I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.
I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.
Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.
Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.
These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.
There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.
What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.
Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.
It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.
My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.
The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.
We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.
I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.
I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.
Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.
Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
There’s never been anything like the revolution in the treatment of obesity that we are now living through. Historically, there’s always been calorie counting and diets. Now, after a burst of interest in gastric bypass surgery, we have the amazing world of injectables. We all have heard about Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Wegovy.
These are being used by millions of Americans at this point, some on prescription for conditions like diabetes and some to bring about weight loss in prediabetes, or in some instances — as is often seen on American television — weight control or weight loss by people who just want to look better. Celebrities getting behind these injectables has really powered an explosion of use.
There still are ethical issues out there for practitioners. For one thing, there are some forms of semaglutide, a key ingredient in some of these injectables, that are made by compounding pharmacies. They’re not the name-brand prescription injectables made by large companies. They’re brewed up, if you will, by a specialty pharmacy trying to mimic the ingredient.
What we’ve seen in recent weeks is an explosion of overdoses. When a person uses one of these compounding pharmacies, usually in association with a spa or sometimes online sales of weight loss injectables, they’re not always certain about how to dose themselves, how much to give, and what to take. They could misread the instructions. The more that it’s up to them to determine the dose, the more there’s risk for error. Reports show as much as 1500% increases in poisoning of people who took, instead of a 10th of a milliliter, 10 mL of these compounded versions of the injectable drugs.
Everybody needs to be alert, and not only for adverse events from the prescription injectables. It is important to track that, make sure that people aren’t getting into trouble, and have contact with the FDA if you have a patient who reports some kind of adverse event they attribute to injectables.
It’s important to realize that there’s this generic, cheaper path, but it’s a more dangerous path. People need to know this if they’re going to try that route. Doctors should be aware of it. People should be ready to call the poison control center number in their area to make sure that they know what to do if they overdose on this stuff.
My own inclination is to try to discourage its use. I think it’s still too dangerous to have people self-dosing with ingredients that really are not yet FDA approved in terms of knowing that they’ve been tested in clinical trials.
The other big issue, aside from this Wild West world outside of prescribed injectables, is what to say to people who are obese or trying to manage their weight. I think people need to know all their options. It’s pretty easy to just say, “Let’s put you on one of these injectables” and prescribe it. For one thing, they may not be able to get it; there’s such huge demand that there are some shortages out there.
We don’t really know the long-term consequences of decades-long use of these drugs.
I think people should hear their options and maybe try something less invasive to begin with. If that doesn’t work, then move on to the injectables. It isn’t so clear to me — given the cost, some of the unknowns of long-term use, and some of the dangers of people sneaking around and trying to get things cheaper on the side — that going straight to injectables is our best answer.
I do think doctors should talk about weight with their patients, carefully, with the patient’s consent. Make sure there’s no stigma. Make sure we’re not doing anything to raise anxiety as we talk about this condition. After all, it is seen as a disease.
Then, maybe enter your way gradually into interventions, seeing if lifestyle change is possible. It’s cheap and easier to implement: better diet, better exercise, or calorie counting. Some people succeed. When they don’t, we should move on, but realize that we’ve got the equivalent of a black market. We need to encourage patients, if they use injectable weight loss drugs, to tell doctors so that they can be on alert about the dangers and risks of overdose.
Dr. Caplan is Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed an unpaid position with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use, and serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Offsetting Side Effects of New Antiobesity Medications
It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.
In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question:
Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.
Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.
The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.
To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.
Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.
*The patient’s name has been changed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.
In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question:
Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.
Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.
The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.
To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.
Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.
*The patient’s name has been changed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.
In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question:
Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.
Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.
The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.
To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.
Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.
*The patient’s name has been changed.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Unlikely Breakthrough of the Year: Chemo for Lung Cancer
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.
Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.
What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.
What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.
What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.
What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.
Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.
We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.
So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.
The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.
There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.
Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.
Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.
What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.
What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.
What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.
What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.
Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.
We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.
So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.
The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.
There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.
Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.
Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.
What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.
What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.
What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.
What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.
Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.
We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.
So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.
The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.
There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.
Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Implementing Trustworthy AI in VA High Reliability Health Care Organizations
Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.1
AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.2
High Reliability Organizations
High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.3
Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.4 Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.
The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.5
Trustworthy AI Framework
AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).10
First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.
Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.
Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.
Conclusions
Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.
1. Sahni NR, Carrus B. Artificial intelligence in U.S. health care delivery. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(4):348-358. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2204673
2. Borkowski AA, Jakey CE, Mastorides SM, et al. Applications of ChatGPT and large language models in medicine and health care: benefits and pitfalls. Fed Pract. 2023;40(6):170-173. doi:10.12788/fp.0386
3. Moyal-Smith R, Margo J, Maloney FL, et al. The patient safety adoption framework: a practical framework to bridge the know-do gap. J Patient Saf. 2023;19(4):243-248. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001118
4. Isaacks DB, Anderson TM, Moore SC, Patterson W, Govindan S. High reliability organization principles improve VA workplace burnout: the Truman THRIVE2 model. Am J Med Qual. 2021;36(6):422-428. doi:10.1097/01.JMQ.0000735516.35323.97
5. Sculli GL, Pendley-Louis R, Neily J, et al. A high-reliability organization framework for health care: a multiyear implementation strategy and associated outcomes. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(1):64-70. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000788
6. National Institute of Standards and Technology. AI risk management framework. Accessed January 2, 2024. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
7. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy. Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights
8. Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 13960: promoting the use of trustworthy artificial intelligence in the federal government. Fed Regist. 2020;89(236):78939-78943.
9. Biden JR. Executive Order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. Published October 30, 2023. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
10. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Trustworthy AI. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://department.va.gov/ai/trustworthy/
Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.1
AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.2
High Reliability Organizations
High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.3
Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.4 Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.
The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.5
Trustworthy AI Framework
AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).10
First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.
Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.
Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.
Conclusions
Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.1
AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.2
High Reliability Organizations
High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.3
Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.4 Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.
The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.5
Trustworthy AI Framework
AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).10
First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.
Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.
Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.
Conclusions
Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.
1. Sahni NR, Carrus B. Artificial intelligence in U.S. health care delivery. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(4):348-358. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2204673
2. Borkowski AA, Jakey CE, Mastorides SM, et al. Applications of ChatGPT and large language models in medicine and health care: benefits and pitfalls. Fed Pract. 2023;40(6):170-173. doi:10.12788/fp.0386
3. Moyal-Smith R, Margo J, Maloney FL, et al. The patient safety adoption framework: a practical framework to bridge the know-do gap. J Patient Saf. 2023;19(4):243-248. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001118
4. Isaacks DB, Anderson TM, Moore SC, Patterson W, Govindan S. High reliability organization principles improve VA workplace burnout: the Truman THRIVE2 model. Am J Med Qual. 2021;36(6):422-428. doi:10.1097/01.JMQ.0000735516.35323.97
5. Sculli GL, Pendley-Louis R, Neily J, et al. A high-reliability organization framework for health care: a multiyear implementation strategy and associated outcomes. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(1):64-70. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000788
6. National Institute of Standards and Technology. AI risk management framework. Accessed January 2, 2024. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
7. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy. Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights
8. Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 13960: promoting the use of trustworthy artificial intelligence in the federal government. Fed Regist. 2020;89(236):78939-78943.
9. Biden JR. Executive Order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. Published October 30, 2023. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
10. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Trustworthy AI. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://department.va.gov/ai/trustworthy/
1. Sahni NR, Carrus B. Artificial intelligence in U.S. health care delivery. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(4):348-358. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2204673
2. Borkowski AA, Jakey CE, Mastorides SM, et al. Applications of ChatGPT and large language models in medicine and health care: benefits and pitfalls. Fed Pract. 2023;40(6):170-173. doi:10.12788/fp.0386
3. Moyal-Smith R, Margo J, Maloney FL, et al. The patient safety adoption framework: a practical framework to bridge the know-do gap. J Patient Saf. 2023;19(4):243-248. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001118
4. Isaacks DB, Anderson TM, Moore SC, Patterson W, Govindan S. High reliability organization principles improve VA workplace burnout: the Truman THRIVE2 model. Am J Med Qual. 2021;36(6):422-428. doi:10.1097/01.JMQ.0000735516.35323.97
5. Sculli GL, Pendley-Louis R, Neily J, et al. A high-reliability organization framework for health care: a multiyear implementation strategy and associated outcomes. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(1):64-70. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000788
6. National Institute of Standards and Technology. AI risk management framework. Accessed January 2, 2024. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
7. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy. Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights
8. Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 13960: promoting the use of trustworthy artificial intelligence in the federal government. Fed Regist. 2020;89(236):78939-78943.
9. Biden JR. Executive Order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. Published October 30, 2023. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
10. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Trustworthy AI. Accessed January 11, 2024. https://department.va.gov/ai/trustworthy/
Moving the Field FORWARD
As an organization, AGA has invested heavily in programs and initiatives to support the professional development of its members across career stages. This includes programs such as the AGA-AASLD Academic Skills Workshop (in which I was fortunate to participate in 2016), Women’s Leadership and Executive Leadership Conferences (with the Midwest Women in GI Regional Workshop taking place later this month), and the AGA Research Foundation Awards Program, which distributes over $2 million in funding annually to support promising early career and senior investigators.
AGA’s Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity (FORWARD) Program, which was first funded by the National Institutes of Health in 2018 and is focused on improving the diversity of the GI research workforce, is another shining example. Led by Dr. Byron Cryer and Dr. Sandra Quezada, the program recently welcomed its 3rd cohort of participants, including 14 mentees and 28 senior and near-peer mentors.
We are pleased to frequently highlight these programs in the pages of GI & Hepatology News, and hope you enjoy learning more about each of these initiatives in future issues.
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight AGA’s newest Clinical Practice Guideline focused on management of pouchitis. We also report on the results of a recent RCT published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the efficacy of thalidomide as a treatment for recurrent bleeding due to small-intestinal angiodysplasia and summarize other key journal content impacting your clinical practice. In our February Member Spotlight, we feature Dr. Rajeev Jain of Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, a former AGA Governing Board member, and learn about his advocacy work to improve patient care and reduce physician burnout through insurance coverage and MOC reform. We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our February issue!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
As an organization, AGA has invested heavily in programs and initiatives to support the professional development of its members across career stages. This includes programs such as the AGA-AASLD Academic Skills Workshop (in which I was fortunate to participate in 2016), Women’s Leadership and Executive Leadership Conferences (with the Midwest Women in GI Regional Workshop taking place later this month), and the AGA Research Foundation Awards Program, which distributes over $2 million in funding annually to support promising early career and senior investigators.
AGA’s Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity (FORWARD) Program, which was first funded by the National Institutes of Health in 2018 and is focused on improving the diversity of the GI research workforce, is another shining example. Led by Dr. Byron Cryer and Dr. Sandra Quezada, the program recently welcomed its 3rd cohort of participants, including 14 mentees and 28 senior and near-peer mentors.
We are pleased to frequently highlight these programs in the pages of GI & Hepatology News, and hope you enjoy learning more about each of these initiatives in future issues.
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight AGA’s newest Clinical Practice Guideline focused on management of pouchitis. We also report on the results of a recent RCT published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the efficacy of thalidomide as a treatment for recurrent bleeding due to small-intestinal angiodysplasia and summarize other key journal content impacting your clinical practice. In our February Member Spotlight, we feature Dr. Rajeev Jain of Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, a former AGA Governing Board member, and learn about his advocacy work to improve patient care and reduce physician burnout through insurance coverage and MOC reform. We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our February issue!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
As an organization, AGA has invested heavily in programs and initiatives to support the professional development of its members across career stages. This includes programs such as the AGA-AASLD Academic Skills Workshop (in which I was fortunate to participate in 2016), Women’s Leadership and Executive Leadership Conferences (with the Midwest Women in GI Regional Workshop taking place later this month), and the AGA Research Foundation Awards Program, which distributes over $2 million in funding annually to support promising early career and senior investigators.
AGA’s Fostering Opportunities Resulting in Workforce and Research Diversity (FORWARD) Program, which was first funded by the National Institutes of Health in 2018 and is focused on improving the diversity of the GI research workforce, is another shining example. Led by Dr. Byron Cryer and Dr. Sandra Quezada, the program recently welcomed its 3rd cohort of participants, including 14 mentees and 28 senior and near-peer mentors.
We are pleased to frequently highlight these programs in the pages of GI & Hepatology News, and hope you enjoy learning more about each of these initiatives in future issues.
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight AGA’s newest Clinical Practice Guideline focused on management of pouchitis. We also report on the results of a recent RCT published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the efficacy of thalidomide as a treatment for recurrent bleeding due to small-intestinal angiodysplasia and summarize other key journal content impacting your clinical practice. In our February Member Spotlight, we feature Dr. Rajeev Jain of Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, a former AGA Governing Board member, and learn about his advocacy work to improve patient care and reduce physician burnout through insurance coverage and MOC reform. We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our February issue!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief