User login
Two Doctors Face Down a Gunman While Saving His Victim
Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. 'Is There a Doctor in the House?' is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.
Bill Madden, MD: It was a Saturday in October of 1996. I had gone to my favorite plant nursery in Tucson with my wife, Beth, and two of my kids, Zach and Katya, who were 9 years old. I went to the back of the nursery to use the bathroom, and I heard two of the workers yelling at each other. The tone was angry.
I went back up to the front, and Zach said that he was bored. He asked if he could go to the car and get a book, so I gave him my car keys and told him to be careful crossing the street.
Ron Quintia, DDS: It was late in the afternoon, probably close to 4 PM. But no, it can’t be a gun. This is a plant nursery.
BM: When I heard the rounds being fired, I knew what that sound meant. I was in the Army for 20 years doing critical care for kids.
I turned and a young man came running toward me out of the sun. It was hard to see, but I realized a second guy was running about 10 feet behind him. Both men were screaming.
My wife was about 10 feet away behind a raised planter with Katya. I yelled for them to get down as I dove for the ground.
The first guy, a young Hispanic man, tried to escape through some bushes. But the shooter was catching up. I recognized him. He was from Ethiopia and worked at the nursery. I had talked to him a week earlier about his life; he used to be a farmer.
Now, he was holding a 9-mm automatic — silver, very shiny. He shot the Hispanic man twice in the chest. Then he ran toward the back of the nursery.
RQ: When I realized what was happening, I crouched down, so I couldn’t see very much. But I heard someone screaming, “He has a gun! He has a gun!” And then I heard more shots.
BM: I yelled at my wife, “Get out!” Then I ran for the phone at the kiosk desk to call 911. This was before most people had cell phones. But the phone was hooked up to the paging system for the nursery, and I couldn’t get it to work. I turned and ran for the wounded man.
RQ: I got to the victim first. Both lungs had been hit, and I could hear he had sucking chest wounds. He was bleeding out of his mouth, saying, “I’m going to die. I’m going to die.” I told him, “You’re not going to die,” while thinking to myself, He’s going to die.
BM: I had never met Ron before, but we started working on the patient together. Both of his lungs were collapsing. With sucking chest wounds, the critical issue is to seal up the holes. So normally, you slap a Vaseline dressing on and tape it up real good. But obviously, we didn’t have anything.
Ron and I took off our shirts and used them to bandage the man’s chest. He wasn’t looking good, starting to turn blue. He was dying. We were yelling for someone to call an ambulance.
And then suddenly, the shooter was back. He was standing there yelling at us to leave so he could kill the man we were helping. The 9-mil was in his hand, ready to fire. He kept screaming, “I’m not a monkey! I’m not a monkey!”
RQ: The guy was less than 10 feet from us, and we were facing down this gun that looked like a cannon. I thought, This is it. It’s curtains. I’m going to die. We’re all going to die.
BM: I had decided I would die too. I wasn’t frightened though. It’s hard to explain. Dying was okay because I’d gotten my family away. I just had to stay alive as long as I could in order to provide for the victim.
It’s what I signed up for when I chose to be a doc — to do whatever was needed. And if I got killed in the process, that was just part of the story. So we started talking to the shooter.
I said, “No, you’re not a monkey. You’re a man, a human being. It’s okay.” We pleaded with him to put the weapon down and not to shoot. We did not leave the patient. Finally, the shooter ran off toward the back of the nursery.
RQ: About 30 seconds after that, we heard two more shots from that direction.
Then there were sirens, and the place was suddenly crawling with police. The paramedics came and took over. I got up and got out of the way.
BM: A young woman ran up, her mouth covered with blood. She said that there was another victim in the back. I asked a police officer to go with us to check. We started for the back when suddenly, we heard yelling and many rounds being fired. The officer ran in the direction of the shooting.
The woman and I kept walking through rows of plants and trees. It was like moving through a jungle. Finally, we reached the other victim, an American Indian man, lying on his back. He had a chest wound and a head wound. No respirations. No radial pulse. No carotid pulse. I pronounced him dead.
Then I heard a voice calling for help. There were two women hiding nearby in the bushes. I led them to where the police cars were.
Another officer came over and told me that they had the shooter. The police had shot him in the leg and arrested him.
RQ: The police kept us there for quite some time. Meanwhile, the TV crews arrived. I had a black Toyota 4Runner at the time. My family was home watching the news, and a bulletin came on about a shooting in Midtown. The camera panned around the area, and my wife saw our car on the street! They were all worried until I could call and let them know that I was okay.
BM: As we waited, the sun went down, and I was getting cold. My shirt was a bloody mess. Ron and I just sat there quietly, not saying a whole heck of a lot.
Finally, an officer took our statements, a detective interviewed us, and they let us leave. I called Beth, and she and the kids came and got me.
At home, we talked to the kids, letting them express their fears. We put them to bed. I didn’t sleep that night.
RQ: I can’t describe how weird it was going home with this guy’s blood on my body. Needing to take a bath. Trying to get rid of the stench of what could have been a brutal killing. But it wasn’t. At least, not for our patient.
Thankfully, there are three hospitals within a stone’s throw of the nursery. The paramedics got the man we helped to Tucson Medical Center and into the OR immediately. Then the general surgeons could get chest tubes in him to reinflate his lungs.
BM: The doctor who treated him called me later. He said that when they put the chest tubes in, they got a liter and a half of blood out of him. If it had taken another 10 minutes or so to get there, he very likely would’ve been dead on arrival in the emergency room.
RQ: I checked on him at the hospital the next day, and he was doing okay. That was the last time I saw him.
I only saw the shooter again in court. Dr. Madden and I were both called as witnesses at his trial. He was tried for capital murder and 12 charges of aggravated assault for every person who was at the nursery. He was found guilty on all of them and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison.
BM: I don’t think the shooter was very well represented in court. It’s not that he didn’t kill one person and critically wound another. He did, and he deserves to be punished for that. But his story wasn’t told.
I knew that during the civil war in Ethiopia, his family had been killed by Cuban soldiers sent there to help the pro-communist government. In a way, I thought of him as two different people: the shooter and the farmer. They are both in prison, but only one of them deserves to be there.
After it happened, I wanted to visit the farmer in the hospital and tell him that, despite what he had done, he was not alone. Our family cared about him. The police wouldn’t let me see him, so I asked the Catholic chaplain of the hospital to go. He gave him my message: that despite all the sorrow and pain, in some distant way, I understood. I respected him as a human being. And I was praying for him.
RQ: It’s safe to say that the experience will affect me forever. For months, even years afterward, if somebody would ask me about what happened, I would start to cry. I would sit in the parking lot of my favorite running trail and worry about the people driving in. If I heard a car backfire, I thought about gunshots.
It was terrifying. And thank God I’ve never found myself in that position again. But I suspect I’d probably react the same way. This is our calling. It’s what we do — protecting other people and taking care of them.
BM: I’d always wondered what I would do in a situation like this. I knew I could function in a critical care situation, a child in a hospital or in the back of an ambulance. But could I do it when my own life was threatened? I found out that I could, and that was really important to me.
RQ: It was one of those great lessons in life. You realize how lucky you are and that your life can be snatched away from you in a millisecond. I went to a nursery to buy plants for my yard, and instead I ended up helping to save a life.Bill Madden, MD, is a retired US Army colonel and pediatrician, formerly an associate professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the College of Medicine of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
Ron Quintia, DDS, is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at Southern Arizona Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery in Tucson, Arizona.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. 'Is There a Doctor in the House?' is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.
Bill Madden, MD: It was a Saturday in October of 1996. I had gone to my favorite plant nursery in Tucson with my wife, Beth, and two of my kids, Zach and Katya, who were 9 years old. I went to the back of the nursery to use the bathroom, and I heard two of the workers yelling at each other. The tone was angry.
I went back up to the front, and Zach said that he was bored. He asked if he could go to the car and get a book, so I gave him my car keys and told him to be careful crossing the street.
Ron Quintia, DDS: It was late in the afternoon, probably close to 4 PM. But no, it can’t be a gun. This is a plant nursery.
BM: When I heard the rounds being fired, I knew what that sound meant. I was in the Army for 20 years doing critical care for kids.
I turned and a young man came running toward me out of the sun. It was hard to see, but I realized a second guy was running about 10 feet behind him. Both men were screaming.
My wife was about 10 feet away behind a raised planter with Katya. I yelled for them to get down as I dove for the ground.
The first guy, a young Hispanic man, tried to escape through some bushes. But the shooter was catching up. I recognized him. He was from Ethiopia and worked at the nursery. I had talked to him a week earlier about his life; he used to be a farmer.
Now, he was holding a 9-mm automatic — silver, very shiny. He shot the Hispanic man twice in the chest. Then he ran toward the back of the nursery.
RQ: When I realized what was happening, I crouched down, so I couldn’t see very much. But I heard someone screaming, “He has a gun! He has a gun!” And then I heard more shots.
BM: I yelled at my wife, “Get out!” Then I ran for the phone at the kiosk desk to call 911. This was before most people had cell phones. But the phone was hooked up to the paging system for the nursery, and I couldn’t get it to work. I turned and ran for the wounded man.
RQ: I got to the victim first. Both lungs had been hit, and I could hear he had sucking chest wounds. He was bleeding out of his mouth, saying, “I’m going to die. I’m going to die.” I told him, “You’re not going to die,” while thinking to myself, He’s going to die.
BM: I had never met Ron before, but we started working on the patient together. Both of his lungs were collapsing. With sucking chest wounds, the critical issue is to seal up the holes. So normally, you slap a Vaseline dressing on and tape it up real good. But obviously, we didn’t have anything.
Ron and I took off our shirts and used them to bandage the man’s chest. He wasn’t looking good, starting to turn blue. He was dying. We were yelling for someone to call an ambulance.
And then suddenly, the shooter was back. He was standing there yelling at us to leave so he could kill the man we were helping. The 9-mil was in his hand, ready to fire. He kept screaming, “I’m not a monkey! I’m not a monkey!”
RQ: The guy was less than 10 feet from us, and we were facing down this gun that looked like a cannon. I thought, This is it. It’s curtains. I’m going to die. We’re all going to die.
BM: I had decided I would die too. I wasn’t frightened though. It’s hard to explain. Dying was okay because I’d gotten my family away. I just had to stay alive as long as I could in order to provide for the victim.
It’s what I signed up for when I chose to be a doc — to do whatever was needed. And if I got killed in the process, that was just part of the story. So we started talking to the shooter.
I said, “No, you’re not a monkey. You’re a man, a human being. It’s okay.” We pleaded with him to put the weapon down and not to shoot. We did not leave the patient. Finally, the shooter ran off toward the back of the nursery.
RQ: About 30 seconds after that, we heard two more shots from that direction.
Then there were sirens, and the place was suddenly crawling with police. The paramedics came and took over. I got up and got out of the way.
BM: A young woman ran up, her mouth covered with blood. She said that there was another victim in the back. I asked a police officer to go with us to check. We started for the back when suddenly, we heard yelling and many rounds being fired. The officer ran in the direction of the shooting.
The woman and I kept walking through rows of plants and trees. It was like moving through a jungle. Finally, we reached the other victim, an American Indian man, lying on his back. He had a chest wound and a head wound. No respirations. No radial pulse. No carotid pulse. I pronounced him dead.
Then I heard a voice calling for help. There were two women hiding nearby in the bushes. I led them to where the police cars were.
Another officer came over and told me that they had the shooter. The police had shot him in the leg and arrested him.
RQ: The police kept us there for quite some time. Meanwhile, the TV crews arrived. I had a black Toyota 4Runner at the time. My family was home watching the news, and a bulletin came on about a shooting in Midtown. The camera panned around the area, and my wife saw our car on the street! They were all worried until I could call and let them know that I was okay.
BM: As we waited, the sun went down, and I was getting cold. My shirt was a bloody mess. Ron and I just sat there quietly, not saying a whole heck of a lot.
Finally, an officer took our statements, a detective interviewed us, and they let us leave. I called Beth, and she and the kids came and got me.
At home, we talked to the kids, letting them express their fears. We put them to bed. I didn’t sleep that night.
RQ: I can’t describe how weird it was going home with this guy’s blood on my body. Needing to take a bath. Trying to get rid of the stench of what could have been a brutal killing. But it wasn’t. At least, not for our patient.
Thankfully, there are three hospitals within a stone’s throw of the nursery. The paramedics got the man we helped to Tucson Medical Center and into the OR immediately. Then the general surgeons could get chest tubes in him to reinflate his lungs.
BM: The doctor who treated him called me later. He said that when they put the chest tubes in, they got a liter and a half of blood out of him. If it had taken another 10 minutes or so to get there, he very likely would’ve been dead on arrival in the emergency room.
RQ: I checked on him at the hospital the next day, and he was doing okay. That was the last time I saw him.
I only saw the shooter again in court. Dr. Madden and I were both called as witnesses at his trial. He was tried for capital murder and 12 charges of aggravated assault for every person who was at the nursery. He was found guilty on all of them and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison.
BM: I don’t think the shooter was very well represented in court. It’s not that he didn’t kill one person and critically wound another. He did, and he deserves to be punished for that. But his story wasn’t told.
I knew that during the civil war in Ethiopia, his family had been killed by Cuban soldiers sent there to help the pro-communist government. In a way, I thought of him as two different people: the shooter and the farmer. They are both in prison, but only one of them deserves to be there.
After it happened, I wanted to visit the farmer in the hospital and tell him that, despite what he had done, he was not alone. Our family cared about him. The police wouldn’t let me see him, so I asked the Catholic chaplain of the hospital to go. He gave him my message: that despite all the sorrow and pain, in some distant way, I understood. I respected him as a human being. And I was praying for him.
RQ: It’s safe to say that the experience will affect me forever. For months, even years afterward, if somebody would ask me about what happened, I would start to cry. I would sit in the parking lot of my favorite running trail and worry about the people driving in. If I heard a car backfire, I thought about gunshots.
It was terrifying. And thank God I’ve never found myself in that position again. But I suspect I’d probably react the same way. This is our calling. It’s what we do — protecting other people and taking care of them.
BM: I’d always wondered what I would do in a situation like this. I knew I could function in a critical care situation, a child in a hospital or in the back of an ambulance. But could I do it when my own life was threatened? I found out that I could, and that was really important to me.
RQ: It was one of those great lessons in life. You realize how lucky you are and that your life can be snatched away from you in a millisecond. I went to a nursery to buy plants for my yard, and instead I ended up helping to save a life.Bill Madden, MD, is a retired US Army colonel and pediatrician, formerly an associate professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the College of Medicine of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
Ron Quintia, DDS, is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at Southern Arizona Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery in Tucson, Arizona.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Emergencies happen anywhere and anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. 'Is There a Doctor in the House?' is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.
Bill Madden, MD: It was a Saturday in October of 1996. I had gone to my favorite plant nursery in Tucson with my wife, Beth, and two of my kids, Zach and Katya, who were 9 years old. I went to the back of the nursery to use the bathroom, and I heard two of the workers yelling at each other. The tone was angry.
I went back up to the front, and Zach said that he was bored. He asked if he could go to the car and get a book, so I gave him my car keys and told him to be careful crossing the street.
Ron Quintia, DDS: It was late in the afternoon, probably close to 4 PM. But no, it can’t be a gun. This is a plant nursery.
BM: When I heard the rounds being fired, I knew what that sound meant. I was in the Army for 20 years doing critical care for kids.
I turned and a young man came running toward me out of the sun. It was hard to see, but I realized a second guy was running about 10 feet behind him. Both men were screaming.
My wife was about 10 feet away behind a raised planter with Katya. I yelled for them to get down as I dove for the ground.
The first guy, a young Hispanic man, tried to escape through some bushes. But the shooter was catching up. I recognized him. He was from Ethiopia and worked at the nursery. I had talked to him a week earlier about his life; he used to be a farmer.
Now, he was holding a 9-mm automatic — silver, very shiny. He shot the Hispanic man twice in the chest. Then he ran toward the back of the nursery.
RQ: When I realized what was happening, I crouched down, so I couldn’t see very much. But I heard someone screaming, “He has a gun! He has a gun!” And then I heard more shots.
BM: I yelled at my wife, “Get out!” Then I ran for the phone at the kiosk desk to call 911. This was before most people had cell phones. But the phone was hooked up to the paging system for the nursery, and I couldn’t get it to work. I turned and ran for the wounded man.
RQ: I got to the victim first. Both lungs had been hit, and I could hear he had sucking chest wounds. He was bleeding out of his mouth, saying, “I’m going to die. I’m going to die.” I told him, “You’re not going to die,” while thinking to myself, He’s going to die.
BM: I had never met Ron before, but we started working on the patient together. Both of his lungs were collapsing. With sucking chest wounds, the critical issue is to seal up the holes. So normally, you slap a Vaseline dressing on and tape it up real good. But obviously, we didn’t have anything.
Ron and I took off our shirts and used them to bandage the man’s chest. He wasn’t looking good, starting to turn blue. He was dying. We were yelling for someone to call an ambulance.
And then suddenly, the shooter was back. He was standing there yelling at us to leave so he could kill the man we were helping. The 9-mil was in his hand, ready to fire. He kept screaming, “I’m not a monkey! I’m not a monkey!”
RQ: The guy was less than 10 feet from us, and we were facing down this gun that looked like a cannon. I thought, This is it. It’s curtains. I’m going to die. We’re all going to die.
BM: I had decided I would die too. I wasn’t frightened though. It’s hard to explain. Dying was okay because I’d gotten my family away. I just had to stay alive as long as I could in order to provide for the victim.
It’s what I signed up for when I chose to be a doc — to do whatever was needed. And if I got killed in the process, that was just part of the story. So we started talking to the shooter.
I said, “No, you’re not a monkey. You’re a man, a human being. It’s okay.” We pleaded with him to put the weapon down and not to shoot. We did not leave the patient. Finally, the shooter ran off toward the back of the nursery.
RQ: About 30 seconds after that, we heard two more shots from that direction.
Then there were sirens, and the place was suddenly crawling with police. The paramedics came and took over. I got up and got out of the way.
BM: A young woman ran up, her mouth covered with blood. She said that there was another victim in the back. I asked a police officer to go with us to check. We started for the back when suddenly, we heard yelling and many rounds being fired. The officer ran in the direction of the shooting.
The woman and I kept walking through rows of plants and trees. It was like moving through a jungle. Finally, we reached the other victim, an American Indian man, lying on his back. He had a chest wound and a head wound. No respirations. No radial pulse. No carotid pulse. I pronounced him dead.
Then I heard a voice calling for help. There were two women hiding nearby in the bushes. I led them to where the police cars were.
Another officer came over and told me that they had the shooter. The police had shot him in the leg and arrested him.
RQ: The police kept us there for quite some time. Meanwhile, the TV crews arrived. I had a black Toyota 4Runner at the time. My family was home watching the news, and a bulletin came on about a shooting in Midtown. The camera panned around the area, and my wife saw our car on the street! They were all worried until I could call and let them know that I was okay.
BM: As we waited, the sun went down, and I was getting cold. My shirt was a bloody mess. Ron and I just sat there quietly, not saying a whole heck of a lot.
Finally, an officer took our statements, a detective interviewed us, and they let us leave. I called Beth, and she and the kids came and got me.
At home, we talked to the kids, letting them express their fears. We put them to bed. I didn’t sleep that night.
RQ: I can’t describe how weird it was going home with this guy’s blood on my body. Needing to take a bath. Trying to get rid of the stench of what could have been a brutal killing. But it wasn’t. At least, not for our patient.
Thankfully, there are three hospitals within a stone’s throw of the nursery. The paramedics got the man we helped to Tucson Medical Center and into the OR immediately. Then the general surgeons could get chest tubes in him to reinflate his lungs.
BM: The doctor who treated him called me later. He said that when they put the chest tubes in, they got a liter and a half of blood out of him. If it had taken another 10 minutes or so to get there, he very likely would’ve been dead on arrival in the emergency room.
RQ: I checked on him at the hospital the next day, and he was doing okay. That was the last time I saw him.
I only saw the shooter again in court. Dr. Madden and I were both called as witnesses at his trial. He was tried for capital murder and 12 charges of aggravated assault for every person who was at the nursery. He was found guilty on all of them and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison.
BM: I don’t think the shooter was very well represented in court. It’s not that he didn’t kill one person and critically wound another. He did, and he deserves to be punished for that. But his story wasn’t told.
I knew that during the civil war in Ethiopia, his family had been killed by Cuban soldiers sent there to help the pro-communist government. In a way, I thought of him as two different people: the shooter and the farmer. They are both in prison, but only one of them deserves to be there.
After it happened, I wanted to visit the farmer in the hospital and tell him that, despite what he had done, he was not alone. Our family cared about him. The police wouldn’t let me see him, so I asked the Catholic chaplain of the hospital to go. He gave him my message: that despite all the sorrow and pain, in some distant way, I understood. I respected him as a human being. And I was praying for him.
RQ: It’s safe to say that the experience will affect me forever. For months, even years afterward, if somebody would ask me about what happened, I would start to cry. I would sit in the parking lot of my favorite running trail and worry about the people driving in. If I heard a car backfire, I thought about gunshots.
It was terrifying. And thank God I’ve never found myself in that position again. But I suspect I’d probably react the same way. This is our calling. It’s what we do — protecting other people and taking care of them.
BM: I’d always wondered what I would do in a situation like this. I knew I could function in a critical care situation, a child in a hospital or in the back of an ambulance. But could I do it when my own life was threatened? I found out that I could, and that was really important to me.
RQ: It was one of those great lessons in life. You realize how lucky you are and that your life can be snatched away from you in a millisecond. I went to a nursery to buy plants for my yard, and instead I ended up helping to save a life.Bill Madden, MD, is a retired US Army colonel and pediatrician, formerly an associate professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the College of Medicine of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
Ron Quintia, DDS, is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon at Southern Arizona Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery in Tucson, Arizona.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
10 Reasons to Refer Your Patient to an Endocrinologist
The blockbuster drugs of the century have arrived: glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These drugs were developed to control blood sugar but have gained immense popularity for weight loss. Patients are clamoring for the drugs, and physicians are inundated with patient inquiries.
As doctors in primary care and other specialties are discovering, the GLP-1 RA drugs add another layer of complexity to the long-term management of a chronic disease. Managing diabetes and obesity requires a multidisciplinary team and a multispecialty treatment approach.
That’s why it’s more important than ever to know when and why to refer patients to an endocrinologist, who can offer unparalleled expertise as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach.
Here are 10 reasons to refer your patients with diabetes to an endocrinologist.
1. To help make an optimal medication choice. Endocrinologists navigate diabetes management by considering individualized glycemic, cardiorenal, and weight goals as per guidelines, incorporating knowledge of medication side effects, simplifying regimens for adherence, and addressing practical factors like access and cost. Optimal medication selection is crucial, as a recent study found that nearly two thirds of patients altered their treatment by discontinuing their medication, switching their medication, or changing the dose of their medication within 12 months. Whether diabetes is controlled or uncontrolled, patients should consult an endocrinologist due to the potential complexity of cases, including late autoimmune onset of diabetes; medication-induced diabetes; and factors such as age, fragility, and chronic illnesses.
2. To facilitate medication approvals, alternatives, and authorizations. Attaining medication approval for patients entails a nuanced understanding and resources. Through experience and careful consideration, endocrinologists develop insights into potential barriers, especially in cases where approval for specific medications necessitates prior failures with multiple GLP-1 RAs or antihyperglycemic agents. This expertise positions them to advocate effectively for alternative options, often involving the meticulous process of prior authorizations. Certain endocrinology practices may augment this endeavor by offering dedicated resources, such as a specialized prior authorization team.
3. To deal with diabetes complications. Endocrinologists can help address emerging issues in GLP-1 RA drugs such as retinopathy, gastroparesis, and mental health effects. They can also help manage coexisting conditions, such as addressing thyroid nodules before considering the use of GLP-1 RAs. Recognizing the interconnected nature of diabetes and its influence on diverse body systems, endocrinologists ensure a thorough and integrated management strategy for their patients.
4. To titrate other glucose-lowering agents. Patients with diabetes are often on combination therapy. Endocrinologists adeptly adjust and titrate these treatments to optimize glucose control while minimizing side effects like hypoglycemia. Beyond insulin, their expertise encompasses various glucose-lowering agents. Notably, patients who use GLP-1 RAs in combination with medications such as insulin secretagogues (eg, sulfonylurea) and insulin face an elevated risk for hypoglycemia, including severe cases, necessitating careful titration to mitigate these effects.
5. To integrate advances in diabetes technology. Endocrinologists stay abreast of technological advancements in diabetes care, incorporating innovations in monitoring and treatment strategies such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps. This ensures that patients benefit from the latest technologies for more precise management of their condition.
6. To ensure a comprehensive care team. Endocrinologists engage in collaborative efforts with a multidisciplinary team composed of professionals like nurses, diabetes educators, and nutritionists. These experts may be situated within endocrinology offices or accessible through a well-established referral network. Together, the team delivers thorough counseling on medication use and effectively addresses essential lifestyle factors, ensuring a comprehensive approach to diabetes management.
7. To counsel on side effects and management. Ensuring adherence and persistence with medication therapy poses considerable challenges. One study noted discontinuation rates for non-insulin diabetes medications of about 38%, with a higher 50% rate for GLP-1 RA drugs. The study didn›t provide specific reasons for discontinuation, but discontinuation was lower when medications were prescribed by an endocrinologist. Endocrinologists can provide valuable guidance on potential medication side effects and their management. This proactive approach not only fosters patient understanding but also empowers individuals to promptly address side effects, significantly enhancing treatment adherence and overall effectiveness.
8. To work around drug shortages. Given their frequent involvement in prescribing and obtaining medications for patients, endocrinologists adeptly utilize community relationships to navigate medication shortages. Their awareness of drug availability provides patients with a strategic advantage in overcoming supply challenges.
9. To determine dosing equivalents. In situations where supply-chain shortages persist, a thorough understanding of alternative options and dosing equivalents becomes paramount for ensuring uninterrupted care.
To provide follow-up. Endocrinologists prioritize regular follow-ups, providing patients with dedicated time slots for 10. ongoing monitoring and adjustments to their treatment plans. This commitment to follow-up care contributes to sustained, optimal outcomes in diabetes management.
Navigating the intricate healthcare landscape requires a delicate balance between primary care proficiency and specialist expertise, with endocrinologists playing a pivotal role in diabetes management. Our collaborative strength lies in acknowledging challenges and resource limitations, especially a physician’s familiarity with the latest diabetes medications.
Dr. Jaisinghani has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The blockbuster drugs of the century have arrived: glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These drugs were developed to control blood sugar but have gained immense popularity for weight loss. Patients are clamoring for the drugs, and physicians are inundated with patient inquiries.
As doctors in primary care and other specialties are discovering, the GLP-1 RA drugs add another layer of complexity to the long-term management of a chronic disease. Managing diabetes and obesity requires a multidisciplinary team and a multispecialty treatment approach.
That’s why it’s more important than ever to know when and why to refer patients to an endocrinologist, who can offer unparalleled expertise as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach.
Here are 10 reasons to refer your patients with diabetes to an endocrinologist.
1. To help make an optimal medication choice. Endocrinologists navigate diabetes management by considering individualized glycemic, cardiorenal, and weight goals as per guidelines, incorporating knowledge of medication side effects, simplifying regimens for adherence, and addressing practical factors like access and cost. Optimal medication selection is crucial, as a recent study found that nearly two thirds of patients altered their treatment by discontinuing their medication, switching their medication, or changing the dose of their medication within 12 months. Whether diabetes is controlled or uncontrolled, patients should consult an endocrinologist due to the potential complexity of cases, including late autoimmune onset of diabetes; medication-induced diabetes; and factors such as age, fragility, and chronic illnesses.
2. To facilitate medication approvals, alternatives, and authorizations. Attaining medication approval for patients entails a nuanced understanding and resources. Through experience and careful consideration, endocrinologists develop insights into potential barriers, especially in cases where approval for specific medications necessitates prior failures with multiple GLP-1 RAs or antihyperglycemic agents. This expertise positions them to advocate effectively for alternative options, often involving the meticulous process of prior authorizations. Certain endocrinology practices may augment this endeavor by offering dedicated resources, such as a specialized prior authorization team.
3. To deal with diabetes complications. Endocrinologists can help address emerging issues in GLP-1 RA drugs such as retinopathy, gastroparesis, and mental health effects. They can also help manage coexisting conditions, such as addressing thyroid nodules before considering the use of GLP-1 RAs. Recognizing the interconnected nature of diabetes and its influence on diverse body systems, endocrinologists ensure a thorough and integrated management strategy for their patients.
4. To titrate other glucose-lowering agents. Patients with diabetes are often on combination therapy. Endocrinologists adeptly adjust and titrate these treatments to optimize glucose control while minimizing side effects like hypoglycemia. Beyond insulin, their expertise encompasses various glucose-lowering agents. Notably, patients who use GLP-1 RAs in combination with medications such as insulin secretagogues (eg, sulfonylurea) and insulin face an elevated risk for hypoglycemia, including severe cases, necessitating careful titration to mitigate these effects.
5. To integrate advances in diabetes technology. Endocrinologists stay abreast of technological advancements in diabetes care, incorporating innovations in monitoring and treatment strategies such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps. This ensures that patients benefit from the latest technologies for more precise management of their condition.
6. To ensure a comprehensive care team. Endocrinologists engage in collaborative efforts with a multidisciplinary team composed of professionals like nurses, diabetes educators, and nutritionists. These experts may be situated within endocrinology offices or accessible through a well-established referral network. Together, the team delivers thorough counseling on medication use and effectively addresses essential lifestyle factors, ensuring a comprehensive approach to diabetes management.
7. To counsel on side effects and management. Ensuring adherence and persistence with medication therapy poses considerable challenges. One study noted discontinuation rates for non-insulin diabetes medications of about 38%, with a higher 50% rate for GLP-1 RA drugs. The study didn›t provide specific reasons for discontinuation, but discontinuation was lower when medications were prescribed by an endocrinologist. Endocrinologists can provide valuable guidance on potential medication side effects and their management. This proactive approach not only fosters patient understanding but also empowers individuals to promptly address side effects, significantly enhancing treatment adherence and overall effectiveness.
8. To work around drug shortages. Given their frequent involvement in prescribing and obtaining medications for patients, endocrinologists adeptly utilize community relationships to navigate medication shortages. Their awareness of drug availability provides patients with a strategic advantage in overcoming supply challenges.
9. To determine dosing equivalents. In situations where supply-chain shortages persist, a thorough understanding of alternative options and dosing equivalents becomes paramount for ensuring uninterrupted care.
To provide follow-up. Endocrinologists prioritize regular follow-ups, providing patients with dedicated time slots for 10. ongoing monitoring and adjustments to their treatment plans. This commitment to follow-up care contributes to sustained, optimal outcomes in diabetes management.
Navigating the intricate healthcare landscape requires a delicate balance between primary care proficiency and specialist expertise, with endocrinologists playing a pivotal role in diabetes management. Our collaborative strength lies in acknowledging challenges and resource limitations, especially a physician’s familiarity with the latest diabetes medications.
Dr. Jaisinghani has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The blockbuster drugs of the century have arrived: glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These drugs were developed to control blood sugar but have gained immense popularity for weight loss. Patients are clamoring for the drugs, and physicians are inundated with patient inquiries.
As doctors in primary care and other specialties are discovering, the GLP-1 RA drugs add another layer of complexity to the long-term management of a chronic disease. Managing diabetes and obesity requires a multidisciplinary team and a multispecialty treatment approach.
That’s why it’s more important than ever to know when and why to refer patients to an endocrinologist, who can offer unparalleled expertise as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach.
Here are 10 reasons to refer your patients with diabetes to an endocrinologist.
1. To help make an optimal medication choice. Endocrinologists navigate diabetes management by considering individualized glycemic, cardiorenal, and weight goals as per guidelines, incorporating knowledge of medication side effects, simplifying regimens for adherence, and addressing practical factors like access and cost. Optimal medication selection is crucial, as a recent study found that nearly two thirds of patients altered their treatment by discontinuing their medication, switching their medication, or changing the dose of their medication within 12 months. Whether diabetes is controlled or uncontrolled, patients should consult an endocrinologist due to the potential complexity of cases, including late autoimmune onset of diabetes; medication-induced diabetes; and factors such as age, fragility, and chronic illnesses.
2. To facilitate medication approvals, alternatives, and authorizations. Attaining medication approval for patients entails a nuanced understanding and resources. Through experience and careful consideration, endocrinologists develop insights into potential barriers, especially in cases where approval for specific medications necessitates prior failures with multiple GLP-1 RAs or antihyperglycemic agents. This expertise positions them to advocate effectively for alternative options, often involving the meticulous process of prior authorizations. Certain endocrinology practices may augment this endeavor by offering dedicated resources, such as a specialized prior authorization team.
3. To deal with diabetes complications. Endocrinologists can help address emerging issues in GLP-1 RA drugs such as retinopathy, gastroparesis, and mental health effects. They can also help manage coexisting conditions, such as addressing thyroid nodules before considering the use of GLP-1 RAs. Recognizing the interconnected nature of diabetes and its influence on diverse body systems, endocrinologists ensure a thorough and integrated management strategy for their patients.
4. To titrate other glucose-lowering agents. Patients with diabetes are often on combination therapy. Endocrinologists adeptly adjust and titrate these treatments to optimize glucose control while minimizing side effects like hypoglycemia. Beyond insulin, their expertise encompasses various glucose-lowering agents. Notably, patients who use GLP-1 RAs in combination with medications such as insulin secretagogues (eg, sulfonylurea) and insulin face an elevated risk for hypoglycemia, including severe cases, necessitating careful titration to mitigate these effects.
5. To integrate advances in diabetes technology. Endocrinologists stay abreast of technological advancements in diabetes care, incorporating innovations in monitoring and treatment strategies such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps. This ensures that patients benefit from the latest technologies for more precise management of their condition.
6. To ensure a comprehensive care team. Endocrinologists engage in collaborative efforts with a multidisciplinary team composed of professionals like nurses, diabetes educators, and nutritionists. These experts may be situated within endocrinology offices or accessible through a well-established referral network. Together, the team delivers thorough counseling on medication use and effectively addresses essential lifestyle factors, ensuring a comprehensive approach to diabetes management.
7. To counsel on side effects and management. Ensuring adherence and persistence with medication therapy poses considerable challenges. One study noted discontinuation rates for non-insulin diabetes medications of about 38%, with a higher 50% rate for GLP-1 RA drugs. The study didn›t provide specific reasons for discontinuation, but discontinuation was lower when medications were prescribed by an endocrinologist. Endocrinologists can provide valuable guidance on potential medication side effects and their management. This proactive approach not only fosters patient understanding but also empowers individuals to promptly address side effects, significantly enhancing treatment adherence and overall effectiveness.
8. To work around drug shortages. Given their frequent involvement in prescribing and obtaining medications for patients, endocrinologists adeptly utilize community relationships to navigate medication shortages. Their awareness of drug availability provides patients with a strategic advantage in overcoming supply challenges.
9. To determine dosing equivalents. In situations where supply-chain shortages persist, a thorough understanding of alternative options and dosing equivalents becomes paramount for ensuring uninterrupted care.
To provide follow-up. Endocrinologists prioritize regular follow-ups, providing patients with dedicated time slots for 10. ongoing monitoring and adjustments to their treatment plans. This commitment to follow-up care contributes to sustained, optimal outcomes in diabetes management.
Navigating the intricate healthcare landscape requires a delicate balance between primary care proficiency and specialist expertise, with endocrinologists playing a pivotal role in diabetes management. Our collaborative strength lies in acknowledging challenges and resource limitations, especially a physician’s familiarity with the latest diabetes medications.
Dr. Jaisinghani has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
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.