Perspectives

For this month’s column, I wanted to share some frustrations I have had about the current state of primary care. We all find those things that are going on in medicine that seem crazy and we just have to find a way to adapt to them. It is good to be able to share some of these thoughts with a community as distinguished as you readers. I know some of these are issues that you all struggle with and I wanted to give a voice to them. I wish I had answers to fix them.

Faxes from insurance companies

I find faxes from insurance companies immensely annoying. First, it takes time to go through lots of unwanted faxes but these faxes are extremely inaccurate. Today I received a fax telling me I might want to consider starting a statin in my 64-year-old HIV patient who has hypertension. He has been on a statin for 10 years.

Another fax warned me to not combine ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in a patient who was switched from an ACE inhibitor in July to an ARB because of a cough. The fax that was sent to me has a documented end date for the ACE inhibitor before the start date of the ARB.

We only have so much time in the day and piles of faxes are not helpful.

Speaking of faxes: Why do physical therapy offices and nursing homes fax the same form every day? Physicians do not always work in clinic every single day and it increases the workload and burden when you have to sort through three copies of the same fax. I once worked in a world where these would be sent by mail, and mailed back a week later, which seemed to work just fine.
 

Misinformation

Our patients have many sources of health information. Much of the information they get comes from family, friends, social media posts, and Internet sites. The accuracy of the information is often questionable, and in some cases, they are victims of intentional misinformation.

It is frustrating and time consuming to counter the bogus, unsubstantiated information patients receive. It is especially difficult when patients have done their own research on proven therapies (such as statins) and do not want to use them because of the many websites they have looked at that make unscientific claims about the dangers of the proposed therapy. I share evidence-based websites with my patients for their research; my favorite is medlineplus.gov.
 

Access crisis

The availability of specialty care is extremely limited now. In my health care system, there is up to a 6-month wait for appointments in neurology, cardiology, and endocrinology. This puts the burden on the primary care professional to manage the patient’s health, even when the patient really needs specialty care. It also increases the calls we receive to interpret the echocardiograms, MRIs, or lab tests ordered by specialists who do not share the interpretation of the results with their patients.

What can be done to improve this situation? Automatic consults in the hospital should be limited. Every patient who has a transient ischemic attack with a negative workup does not need neurology follow-up. The same goes for patients who have chest pain but a negative cardiac workup in the hospital – they do not need follow-up by a cardiologist, nor do those who have stable, well-managed coronary disease. We have to find a way to keep our specialists seeing the patients whom they can help the most and available for consultation in a timely fashion.

Please share your pet peeves with me. I will try to give them voice in the future. Hang in there, you are the glue that keeps this flawed system together.

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].

For this month’s column, I wanted to share some frustrations I have had about the current state of primary care. We all find those things that are going on in medicine that seem crazy and we just have to find a way to adapt to them. It is good to be able to share some of these thoughts with a community as distinguished as you readers. I know some of these are issues that you all struggle with and I wanted to give a voice to them. I wish I had answers to fix them.

Faxes from insurance companies

I find faxes from insurance companies immensely annoying. First, it takes time to go through lots of unwanted faxes but these faxes are extremely inaccurate. Today I received a fax telling me I might want to consider starting a statin in my 64-year-old HIV patient who has hypertension. He has been on a statin for 10 years.

Another fax warned me to not combine ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in a patient who was switched from an ACE inhibitor in July to an ARB because of a cough. The fax that was sent to me has a documented end date for the ACE inhibitor before the start date of the ARB.

We only have so much time in the day and piles of faxes are not helpful.

Speaking of faxes: Why do physical therapy offices and nursing homes fax the same form every day? Physicians do not always work in clinic every single day and it increases the workload and burden when you have to sort through three copies of the same fax. I once worked in a world where these would be sent by mail, and mailed back a week later, which seemed to work just fine.
 

Misinformation

Our patients have many sources of health information. Much of the information they get comes from family, friends, social media posts, and Internet sites. The accuracy of the information is often questionable, and in some cases, they are victims of intentional misinformation.

It is frustrating and time consuming to counter the bogus, unsubstantiated information patients receive. It is especially difficult when patients have done their own research on proven therapies (such as statins) and do not want to use them because of the many websites they have looked at that make unscientific claims about the dangers of the proposed therapy. I share evidence-based websites with my patients for their research; my favorite is medlineplus.gov.
 

Access crisis

The availability of specialty care is extremely limited now. In my health care system, there is up to a 6-month wait for appointments in neurology, cardiology, and endocrinology. This puts the burden on the primary care professional to manage the patient’s health, even when the patient really needs specialty care. It also increases the calls we receive to interpret the echocardiograms, MRIs, or lab tests ordered by specialists who do not share the interpretation of the results with their patients.

What can be done to improve this situation? Automatic consults in the hospital should be limited. Every patient who has a transient ischemic attack with a negative workup does not need neurology follow-up. The same goes for patients who have chest pain but a negative cardiac workup in the hospital – they do not need follow-up by a cardiologist, nor do those who have stable, well-managed coronary disease. We have to find a way to keep our specialists seeing the patients whom they can help the most and available for consultation in a timely fashion.

Please share your pet peeves with me. I will try to give them voice in the future. Hang in there, you are the glue that keeps this flawed system together.

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].

For this month’s column, I wanted to share some frustrations I have had about the current state of primary care. We all find those things that are going on in medicine that seem crazy and we just have to find a way to adapt to them. It is good to be able to share some of these thoughts with a community as distinguished as you readers. I know some of these are issues that you all struggle with and I wanted to give a voice to them. I wish I had answers to fix them.

Faxes from insurance companies

I find faxes from insurance companies immensely annoying. First, it takes time to go through lots of unwanted faxes but these faxes are extremely inaccurate. Today I received a fax telling me I might want to consider starting a statin in my 64-year-old HIV patient who has hypertension. He has been on a statin for 10 years.

Another fax warned me to not combine ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in a patient who was switched from an ACE inhibitor in July to an ARB because of a cough. The fax that was sent to me has a documented end date for the ACE inhibitor before the start date of the ARB.

We only have so much time in the day and piles of faxes are not helpful.

Speaking of faxes: Why do physical therapy offices and nursing homes fax the same form every day? Physicians do not always work in clinic every single day and it increases the workload and burden when you have to sort through three copies of the same fax. I once worked in a world where these would be sent by mail, and mailed back a week later, which seemed to work just fine.
 

Misinformation

Our patients have many sources of health information. Much of the information they get comes from family, friends, social media posts, and Internet sites. The accuracy of the information is often questionable, and in some cases, they are victims of intentional misinformation.

It is frustrating and time consuming to counter the bogus, unsubstantiated information patients receive. It is especially difficult when patients have done their own research on proven therapies (such as statins) and do not want to use them because of the many websites they have looked at that make unscientific claims about the dangers of the proposed therapy. I share evidence-based websites with my patients for their research; my favorite is medlineplus.gov.
 

Access crisis

The availability of specialty care is extremely limited now. In my health care system, there is up to a 6-month wait for appointments in neurology, cardiology, and endocrinology. This puts the burden on the primary care professional to manage the patient’s health, even when the patient really needs specialty care. It also increases the calls we receive to interpret the echocardiograms, MRIs, or lab tests ordered by specialists who do not share the interpretation of the results with their patients.

What can be done to improve this situation? Automatic consults in the hospital should be limited. Every patient who has a transient ischemic attack with a negative workup does not need neurology follow-up. The same goes for patients who have chest pain but a negative cardiac workup in the hospital – they do not need follow-up by a cardiologist, nor do those who have stable, well-managed coronary disease. We have to find a way to keep our specialists seeing the patients whom they can help the most and available for consultation in a timely fashion.

Please share your pet peeves with me. I will try to give them voice in the future. Hang in there, you are the glue that keeps this flawed system together.

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].

In 2021, diabetes and related complications was the 8th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ As of 2022, more than 11% of the U.S. population had diabetes and 38% of the adult U.S. population had prediabetes.² Diabetes is the most expensive chronic condition in the United States, where $1 of every $4 in health care costs is spent on care.³

Where this is most concerning is diabetes in pregnancy. While childbirth rates in the United States have decreased since the 2007 high of 4.32 million births⁴ to 3.66 million in 2021,⁵ the incidence of diabetes in pregnancy – both pregestational and gestational – has increased. The rate of pregestational diabetes in 2021 was 10.9 per 1,000 births, a 27% increase from 2016 (8.6 per 1,000).⁶ The percentage of those giving birth who also were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) was 8.3% in 2021, up from 6.0% in 2016.⁷

Diabetes in pregnancy not only increases risks of adverse events for mother and fetus: Increasing research suggests the condition signals longer-term risks for the mother and child throughout their lifetimes. Adverse outcomes for an infant born to a mother with diabetes include a higher risk of obesity and diabetes as adults, potentially leading to a forward-feeding cycle.

We and our colleagues established the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America in 1997 because we had witnessed too frequently the devastating diabetes-induced pregnancy complications in our patients. The mission we set forth was to provide a forum for dialogue among maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The three main goals we set forth to support this mission were to provide a catalyst for research, contribute to the creation and refinement of medical policies, and influence professional practices in diabetes in pregnancy.⁸

In the last quarter century, DPSG-NA, through its annual and biennial meetings, has brought together several hundred practitioners that include physicians, nurses, statisticians, researchers, nutritionists, and allied health professionals, among others. As a group, it has improved the detection and management of diabetes in pregnant women and their offspring through knowledge sharing and influencing policies on GDM screening, diagnosis, management, and treatment. Our members have shown that preconceptional counseling for women with diabetes can significantly reduce congenital malformation and perinatal mortality compared with those women with pregestational diabetes who receive no counseling.^9,10

We have addressed a wide variety of topics including the paucity of data in determining the timing of delivery for women with diabetes and the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine recommendations of gestational weight gain and risks of not adhering to them. We have learned about new scientific discoveries that reveal underlying mechanisms to diabetes-related birth defects and potential therapeutic targets; and we have discussed the health literacy requirements, ethics, and opportunities for lifestyle intervention.^11-16

But we need to do more.

Two risk factors are at play: Women continue to choose to have babies at later ages and their pregnancies continue to be complicated by the rising incidence of obesity (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

The global obesity epidemic has become a significant concern for all aspects of health and particularly for diabetes in pregnancy.

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

In 1990, 24.9% of women in the United States were obese; in 2010, 35.8%; and now more than 41%. Some experts project that by 2030 more than 80% of women in the United States will be overweight or obese.²¹

If we are to stop this cycle of diabetes begets more diabetes, now more than ever we need to come together and accelerate the research and education around the diabetes in pregnancy. Join us at this year’s DPSG-NA meeting Oct. 26-28 to take part in the knowledge sharing, discussions, and planning. More information can be found online at https://events.dpsg-na.com/home.

Dr. Miodovnik is adjunct professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Reece is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

References

1. Xu J et al. Mortality in the United States, 2021. NCHS Data Brief. 2022 Dec;(456):1-8. PMID: 36598387.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, diabetes data and statistics.

3. American Diabetes Association. The Cost of Diabetes.

4. Martin JA et al. Births: Final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010 Aug 9;58(24):1-85. PMID: 21254725.

5. Osterman MJK et al. Births: Final data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 Jan;72(1):1-53. PMID: 36723449.

6. Gregory ECW and Ely DM. Trends and characteristics in prepregnancy diabetes: United States, 2016-2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 May;72(6):1-13. PMID: 37256333.

7. QuickStats: Percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes, by maternal age – National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2016 and 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jan 6;72(1):16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7201a4.
 

8. Langer O et al. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America – Introduction and summary statement. Prenat Neonat Med. 1998;3(6):514-6.

9. Willhoite MB et al. The impact of preconception counseling on pregnancy outcomes. The experience of the Maine Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):450-5. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.2.450.

10. McElvy SS et al. A focused preconceptional and early pregnancy program in women with type 1 diabetes reduces perinatal mortality and malformation rates to general population levels. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):14-20. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<14::AID-MFM5>3.0.CO;2-K.

11. Rosen JA et al. The history and contributions of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (1997-2015). Am J Perinatol. 2016 Nov;33(13):1223-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1585082.

12. Driggers RW and Baschat A. The 12th meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA): Introduction and overview. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jan;25(1):3-4. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.626917.

13. Langer O et al. The proceedings of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America 2009 conference. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Mar;23(3):196-8. doi: 10.3109/14767050903550634.

14. Reece EA et al. A consensus report of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America Conference, Little Rock, Ark., May 2002. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):362-4. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.362.364.

15. Reece EA and Maulik D. A consensus conference of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):361. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.361.361.

16. Gabbe SG. Summation of the second meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA). J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):3-9.

17. Vital Statistics of the United States 1990: Volume I – Natality.

18. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002 Feb 12;50(5):1-101. PMID: 11876093.

19. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012 Aug 28;61(1):1-72. PMID: 24974589.

20. CDC Website. Normal weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States.

21. Wang Y et al. Has the prevalence of overweight, obesity, and central obesity levelled off in the United States? Trends, patterns, disparities, and future projections for the obesity epidemic. Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;49(3):810-23. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz273.

In 2021, diabetes and related complications was the 8th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ As of 2022, more than 11% of the U.S. population had diabetes and 38% of the adult U.S. population had prediabetes.² Diabetes is the most expensive chronic condition in the United States, where $1 of every $4 in health care costs is spent on care.³

Where this is most concerning is diabetes in pregnancy. While childbirth rates in the United States have decreased since the 2007 high of 4.32 million births⁴ to 3.66 million in 2021,⁵ the incidence of diabetes in pregnancy – both pregestational and gestational – has increased. The rate of pregestational diabetes in 2021 was 10.9 per 1,000 births, a 27% increase from 2016 (8.6 per 1,000).⁶ The percentage of those giving birth who also were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) was 8.3% in 2021, up from 6.0% in 2016.⁷

Diabetes in pregnancy not only increases risks of adverse events for mother and fetus: Increasing research suggests the condition signals longer-term risks for the mother and child throughout their lifetimes. Adverse outcomes for an infant born to a mother with diabetes include a higher risk of obesity and diabetes as adults, potentially leading to a forward-feeding cycle.

We and our colleagues established the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America in 1997 because we had witnessed too frequently the devastating diabetes-induced pregnancy complications in our patients. The mission we set forth was to provide a forum for dialogue among maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The three main goals we set forth to support this mission were to provide a catalyst for research, contribute to the creation and refinement of medical policies, and influence professional practices in diabetes in pregnancy.⁸

In the last quarter century, DPSG-NA, through its annual and biennial meetings, has brought together several hundred practitioners that include physicians, nurses, statisticians, researchers, nutritionists, and allied health professionals, among others. As a group, it has improved the detection and management of diabetes in pregnant women and their offspring through knowledge sharing and influencing policies on GDM screening, diagnosis, management, and treatment. Our members have shown that preconceptional counseling for women with diabetes can significantly reduce congenital malformation and perinatal mortality compared with those women with pregestational diabetes who receive no counseling.^9,10

We have addressed a wide variety of topics including the paucity of data in determining the timing of delivery for women with diabetes and the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine recommendations of gestational weight gain and risks of not adhering to them. We have learned about new scientific discoveries that reveal underlying mechanisms to diabetes-related birth defects and potential therapeutic targets; and we have discussed the health literacy requirements, ethics, and opportunities for lifestyle intervention.^11-16

But we need to do more.

Two risk factors are at play: Women continue to choose to have babies at later ages and their pregnancies continue to be complicated by the rising incidence of obesity (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

The global obesity epidemic has become a significant concern for all aspects of health and particularly for diabetes in pregnancy.

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

In 1990, 24.9% of women in the United States were obese; in 2010, 35.8%; and now more than 41%. Some experts project that by 2030 more than 80% of women in the United States will be overweight or obese.²¹

If we are to stop this cycle of diabetes begets more diabetes, now more than ever we need to come together and accelerate the research and education around the diabetes in pregnancy. Join us at this year’s DPSG-NA meeting Oct. 26-28 to take part in the knowledge sharing, discussions, and planning. More information can be found online at https://events.dpsg-na.com/home.

Dr. Miodovnik is adjunct professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Reece is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

References

1. Xu J et al. Mortality in the United States, 2021. NCHS Data Brief. 2022 Dec;(456):1-8. PMID: 36598387.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, diabetes data and statistics.

3. American Diabetes Association. The Cost of Diabetes.

4. Martin JA et al. Births: Final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010 Aug 9;58(24):1-85. PMID: 21254725.

5. Osterman MJK et al. Births: Final data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 Jan;72(1):1-53. PMID: 36723449.

6. Gregory ECW and Ely DM. Trends and characteristics in prepregnancy diabetes: United States, 2016-2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 May;72(6):1-13. PMID: 37256333.

7. QuickStats: Percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes, by maternal age – National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2016 and 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jan 6;72(1):16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7201a4.
 

8. Langer O et al. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America – Introduction and summary statement. Prenat Neonat Med. 1998;3(6):514-6.

9. Willhoite MB et al. The impact of preconception counseling on pregnancy outcomes. The experience of the Maine Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):450-5. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.2.450.

10. McElvy SS et al. A focused preconceptional and early pregnancy program in women with type 1 diabetes reduces perinatal mortality and malformation rates to general population levels. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):14-20. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<14::AID-MFM5>3.0.CO;2-K.

11. Rosen JA et al. The history and contributions of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (1997-2015). Am J Perinatol. 2016 Nov;33(13):1223-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1585082.

12. Driggers RW and Baschat A. The 12th meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA): Introduction and overview. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jan;25(1):3-4. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.626917.

13. Langer O et al. The proceedings of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America 2009 conference. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Mar;23(3):196-8. doi: 10.3109/14767050903550634.

14. Reece EA et al. A consensus report of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America Conference, Little Rock, Ark., May 2002. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):362-4. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.362.364.

15. Reece EA and Maulik D. A consensus conference of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):361. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.361.361.

16. Gabbe SG. Summation of the second meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA). J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):3-9.

17. Vital Statistics of the United States 1990: Volume I – Natality.

18. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002 Feb 12;50(5):1-101. PMID: 11876093.

19. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012 Aug 28;61(1):1-72. PMID: 24974589.

20. CDC Website. Normal weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States.

21. Wang Y et al. Has the prevalence of overweight, obesity, and central obesity levelled off in the United States? Trends, patterns, disparities, and future projections for the obesity epidemic. Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;49(3):810-23. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz273.

In 2021, diabetes and related complications was the 8th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ As of 2022, more than 11% of the U.S. population had diabetes and 38% of the adult U.S. population had prediabetes.² Diabetes is the most expensive chronic condition in the United States, where $1 of every $4 in health care costs is spent on care.³

Where this is most concerning is diabetes in pregnancy. While childbirth rates in the United States have decreased since the 2007 high of 4.32 million births⁴ to 3.66 million in 2021,⁵ the incidence of diabetes in pregnancy – both pregestational and gestational – has increased. The rate of pregestational diabetes in 2021 was 10.9 per 1,000 births, a 27% increase from 2016 (8.6 per 1,000).⁶ The percentage of those giving birth who also were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) was 8.3% in 2021, up from 6.0% in 2016.⁷

Diabetes in pregnancy not only increases risks of adverse events for mother and fetus: Increasing research suggests the condition signals longer-term risks for the mother and child throughout their lifetimes. Adverse outcomes for an infant born to a mother with diabetes include a higher risk of obesity and diabetes as adults, potentially leading to a forward-feeding cycle.

We and our colleagues established the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America in 1997 because we had witnessed too frequently the devastating diabetes-induced pregnancy complications in our patients. The mission we set forth was to provide a forum for dialogue among maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The three main goals we set forth to support this mission were to provide a catalyst for research, contribute to the creation and refinement of medical policies, and influence professional practices in diabetes in pregnancy.⁸

In the last quarter century, DPSG-NA, through its annual and biennial meetings, has brought together several hundred practitioners that include physicians, nurses, statisticians, researchers, nutritionists, and allied health professionals, among others. As a group, it has improved the detection and management of diabetes in pregnant women and their offspring through knowledge sharing and influencing policies on GDM screening, diagnosis, management, and treatment. Our members have shown that preconceptional counseling for women with diabetes can significantly reduce congenital malformation and perinatal mortality compared with those women with pregestational diabetes who receive no counseling.^9,10

We have addressed a wide variety of topics including the paucity of data in determining the timing of delivery for women with diabetes and the Institute of Medicine/National Academy of Medicine recommendations of gestational weight gain and risks of not adhering to them. We have learned about new scientific discoveries that reveal underlying mechanisms to diabetes-related birth defects and potential therapeutic targets; and we have discussed the health literacy requirements, ethics, and opportunities for lifestyle intervention.^11-16

But we need to do more.

Two risk factors are at play: Women continue to choose to have babies at later ages and their pregnancies continue to be complicated by the rising incidence of obesity (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

The global obesity epidemic has become a significant concern for all aspects of health and particularly for diabetes in pregnancy.

Dr. Reece and Dr. Miodovnik

In 1990, 24.9% of women in the United States were obese; in 2010, 35.8%; and now more than 41%. Some experts project that by 2030 more than 80% of women in the United States will be overweight or obese.²¹

If we are to stop this cycle of diabetes begets more diabetes, now more than ever we need to come together and accelerate the research and education around the diabetes in pregnancy. Join us at this year’s DPSG-NA meeting Oct. 26-28 to take part in the knowledge sharing, discussions, and planning. More information can be found online at https://events.dpsg-na.com/home.

Dr. Miodovnik is adjunct professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Reece is professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

References

1. Xu J et al. Mortality in the United States, 2021. NCHS Data Brief. 2022 Dec;(456):1-8. PMID: 36598387.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, diabetes data and statistics.

3. American Diabetes Association. The Cost of Diabetes.

4. Martin JA et al. Births: Final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010 Aug 9;58(24):1-85. PMID: 21254725.

5. Osterman MJK et al. Births: Final data for 2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 Jan;72(1):1-53. PMID: 36723449.

6. Gregory ECW and Ely DM. Trends and characteristics in prepregnancy diabetes: United States, 2016-2021. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2023 May;72(6):1-13. PMID: 37256333.

7. QuickStats: Percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes, by maternal age – National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2016 and 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jan 6;72(1):16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7201a4.
 

8. Langer O et al. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America – Introduction and summary statement. Prenat Neonat Med. 1998;3(6):514-6.

9. Willhoite MB et al. The impact of preconception counseling on pregnancy outcomes. The experience of the Maine Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):450-5. doi: 10.2337/diacare.16.2.450.

10. McElvy SS et al. A focused preconceptional and early pregnancy program in women with type 1 diabetes reduces perinatal mortality and malformation rates to general population levels. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):14-20. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(200001/02)9:1<14::AID-MFM5>3.0.CO;2-K.

11. Rosen JA et al. The history and contributions of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (1997-2015). Am J Perinatol. 2016 Nov;33(13):1223-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1585082.

12. Driggers RW and Baschat A. The 12th meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA): Introduction and overview. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jan;25(1):3-4. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.626917.

13. Langer O et al. The proceedings of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America 2009 conference. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010 Mar;23(3):196-8. doi: 10.3109/14767050903550634.

14. Reece EA et al. A consensus report of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America Conference, Little Rock, Ark., May 2002. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):362-4. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.362.364.

15. Reece EA and Maulik D. A consensus conference of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Dec;12(6):361. doi: 10.1080/jmf.12.6.361.361.

16. Gabbe SG. Summation of the second meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America (DPSG-NA). J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;9(1):3-9.

17. Vital Statistics of the United States 1990: Volume I – Natality.

18. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002 Feb 12;50(5):1-101. PMID: 11876093.

19. Martin JA et al. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012 Aug 28;61(1):1-72. PMID: 24974589.

20. CDC Website. Normal weight, overweight, and obesity among adults aged 20 and over, by selected characteristics: United States.

21. Wang Y et al. Has the prevalence of overweight, obesity, and central obesity levelled off in the United States? Trends, patterns, disparities, and future projections for the obesity epidemic. Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;49(3):810-23. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz273.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m speaking today about the ever-rising prominence of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. There are more and more data emerging suggesting that the neoadjuvant strategy is a better one.

Many of you saw the press release from Merck announcing that their randomized trial comparing chemo with chemo plus pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant setting led to improved event-free survival and also improved pathologic complete response rate.

This comes in addition to the data from the AstraZeneca trial with durvalumab saying they’ve already achieved their endpoint of higher pathologic complete response rate vs. chemotherapy alone and also the data with nivolumab from Bristol-Myers Squibb saying that nivolumab plus chemotherapy leads to a better event-free survival and a better pathologic complete response rate. That information has led to Food and Drug Administration approval for their regimen.

We’re running the table with these very positive data, and I think it’s just a sign that the approach is safe and effective.

A huge question has come up. I just came from a meeting of lung cancer experts asking what to do if you have a patient with a small tumor, for example, a 3-cm tumor. Do you recommend immediate surgery followed by adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy, and then a checkpoint inhibitor if appropriate? Or do you proceed with neoadjuvant therapy if appropriate? The truth is that it’s a very difficult decision.

We have overwhelming data that the neoadjuvant approach works for that patient. Please remember that this is a clinically staged patient. This is not the patient after their surgery, where I think we have a very clear path. We have adjuvant data and adjuvant trials for those patients.

For the patient who’s in your office with a small tumor or a small tumor and only hilar lymphadenopathy, the decision there isn’t data driven, but rather it is experience driven. The data that are out there right now suggest that neoadjuvant therapy is a better way to go. Why is that?

Well, I think that the first reason is that it is probably a better regimen. I think many of you saw the recent clinical trial by Patel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine with melanoma. It was an interesting trial. They gave a checkpoint inhibitor for 18 doses after surgery for melanoma versus three doses of checkpoint inhibitor, surgery, and then 15 doses of the checkpoint inhibitor.

It was 18 doses versus 18 doses, with the only difference being the three doses before surgery. Lo and behold, the three doses before surgery led to a better event-free survival.

There are preclinical data in lung cancer demonstrating that the same thing is true. Tina Cascone published on that years ago. We could talk about why, but it appears that neoadjuvant is just better.

There are other advantages to it as well. I think a big one is that all the information shows that it’s better tolerated, so you’re more likely to give all the drug. You can see if the drug isn’t working, and you can stop the drug. Also, if the drug is causing a side effect, you can see whether it’s working or not and use that decision to stop. It’s different than when you’re giving a drug in the adjuvant setting where you don’t really know whether it is working or not.

I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group. You need to weigh the pros and cons I think that it’s time to change some of our standards. When patients appear with lung cancers other than tiny ones that might be detected through screening, you need to convene your multidisciplinary group coming in. It’s already an FDA-approved regimen with nivolumab and chemotherapy, and I think we’re moving to making that our standard of care now.

The way to handle it today, though, is to convene your multidisciplinary panel about every patient other than those with the tiniest of lung cancers and put your heads together to see what the best treatment is for that patient.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, both in New York. He disclosed ties with Ariad Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PUMA, and Roche/Genentech.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I had a case come to me of a 32-year-old resident who works in a hospital near where I am and was very interested in freezing her eggs. She wasn’t married and was getting worried that maybe she wouldn’t have a partner soon. She was also getting worried that the potential ability of her eggs to be fertilized would begin to decline, which is a phenomenon that does occur with age. She thought, I’m 32; maybe I should freeze my eggs now, as it’s better than to try freezing them when I’m 35 or 37. The potency may be far less.

There are many programs out there now. There have been academic programs for a long time that have been doing egg freezing, and there are many children who have been born successfully. However, it’s also true that people freeze their eggs when they’re 40 years old, and the likelihood of their “working,” if you will, is far less. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but age matters. This medical resident knew that and she decided to look into egg freezing.

Well, it turned out that egg freezing is not something that her student insurance plan – or most insurance plans in general – covers. The opportunity to do this is probably going to cost her about $10,000. There are many new egg-freezing infertility programs that have stared up that aren’t part of hospitals. There are clinics that are run for profit. They sometimes encourage women to freeze their eggs.

The student resident quickly found out that there were companies near her who would do egg freezing but would cut a deal if she agreed to take drugs to super-ovulate, make a large number of eggs, and they would be procured if she agreed to give half of them to other women who needed eggs for their infertility treatment. She could keep half and she could get very discounted treatment of egg freezing. In other words, she could barter her own eggs, said the clinic, if she was willing to accept the idea that she’d be donating them to others.

That may be a deal that she’s going to accept. She doesn’t have a path forward. She’s worried about freezing her eggs right now. But there are many ethical considerations that really have to be thought through here.

First and foremost, she’s giving eggs to others. They’re going to use them to try to make children. They can’t make their own eggs, for some reason. She’s going to have some biologically related kids out there. It used to be that you could say to someone who donated sperm or eggs that this will be anonymous.

But in today’s day and age with 23andMe, Ancestry, and better genetic testing, there’s a pretty good likelihood that somebody is going to find out that the person they thought was their biological mom isn’t, and they have someone out there who was the person who, in this case, donated an egg.

Is she willing to risk having that connection, that contact, to have someone enter her life in the future? It’s a situation where she’s donating the eggs, but I’ll tell you that the clinic is going to make far more money using the donated eggs, probably getting $10,000 or $15,000 a cycle with people who are trying to have a child. They’ll make much more money than she’s going to get by donating.

She may get a $5,000 discount, if you will, but the clinic has a business interest. The more they get women involved in bartering their eggs, the more they’re going to profit. In a sense, she’s being coerced, perhaps – I’m going to put it glibly – to sell cheaply. She probably is getting undervalue, even though she needs a path to do this egg freezing.

The other big issue is that we don’t know that egg freezing is going to work for her until someone tries to use those eggs. She may have her own infertility problem not due to age but to other things. Approximately 8%-9% of couples do have infertility problems, sometimes related to gametes. She may never get a partner. Maybe she doesn’t want to use these eggs on her own as a single mom. All of these issues have to be talked through.

What really troubles me here is not so much that someone would choose to barter their eggs, but that they don’t get counseling. They don’t get independent advice about thinking this all through. It’s turning into a business. A business has a commodity – her eggs – that they want. She’s getting more and more desperate, willing to cut a deal to get where she needs to be, but perhaps is not really thinking through all of the ethical dimensions that bartering or trading one’s eggs in order to gain access to freezing entails.

We have to set up a system where there’s independent advice and independent counseling; otherwise, I think we’re closer to exploitation.

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

Dr. Caplan is director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I had a case come to me of a 32-year-old resident who works in a hospital near where I am and was very interested in freezing her eggs. She wasn’t married and was getting worried that maybe she wouldn’t have a partner soon. She was also getting worried that the potential ability of her eggs to be fertilized would begin to decline, which is a phenomenon that does occur with age. She thought, I’m 32; maybe I should freeze my eggs now, as it’s better than to try freezing them when I’m 35 or 37. The potency may be far less.

There are many programs out there now. There have been academic programs for a long time that have been doing egg freezing, and there are many children who have been born successfully. However, it’s also true that people freeze their eggs when they’re 40 years old, and the likelihood of their “working,” if you will, is far less. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but age matters. This medical resident knew that and she decided to look into egg freezing.

Well, it turned out that egg freezing is not something that her student insurance plan – or most insurance plans in general – covers. The opportunity to do this is probably going to cost her about $10,000. There are many new egg-freezing infertility programs that have stared up that aren’t part of hospitals. There are clinics that are run for profit. They sometimes encourage women to freeze their eggs.

The student resident quickly found out that there were companies near her who would do egg freezing but would cut a deal if she agreed to take drugs to super-ovulate, make a large number of eggs, and they would be procured if she agreed to give half of them to other women who needed eggs for their infertility treatment. She could keep half and she could get very discounted treatment of egg freezing. In other words, she could barter her own eggs, said the clinic, if she was willing to accept the idea that she’d be donating them to others.

That may be a deal that she’s going to accept. She doesn’t have a path forward. She’s worried about freezing her eggs right now. But there are many ethical considerations that really have to be thought through here.

First and foremost, she’s giving eggs to others. They’re going to use them to try to make children. They can’t make their own eggs, for some reason. She’s going to have some biologically related kids out there. It used to be that you could say to someone who donated sperm or eggs that this will be anonymous.

But in today’s day and age with 23andMe, Ancestry, and better genetic testing, there’s a pretty good likelihood that somebody is going to find out that the person they thought was their biological mom isn’t, and they have someone out there who was the person who, in this case, donated an egg.

Is she willing to risk having that connection, that contact, to have someone enter her life in the future? It’s a situation where she’s donating the eggs, but I’ll tell you that the clinic is going to make far more money using the donated eggs, probably getting $10,000 or $15,000 a cycle with people who are trying to have a child. They’ll make much more money than she’s going to get by donating.

She may get a $5,000 discount, if you will, but the clinic has a business interest. The more they get women involved in bartering their eggs, the more they’re going to profit. In a sense, she’s being coerced, perhaps – I’m going to put it glibly – to sell cheaply. She probably is getting undervalue, even though she needs a path to do this egg freezing.

The other big issue is that we don’t know that egg freezing is going to work for her until someone tries to use those eggs. She may have her own infertility problem not due to age but to other things. Approximately 8%-9% of couples do have infertility problems, sometimes related to gametes. She may never get a partner. Maybe she doesn’t want to use these eggs on her own as a single mom. All of these issues have to be talked through.

What really troubles me here is not so much that someone would choose to barter their eggs, but that they don’t get counseling. They don’t get independent advice about thinking this all through. It’s turning into a business. A business has a commodity – her eggs – that they want. She’s getting more and more desperate, willing to cut a deal to get where she needs to be, but perhaps is not really thinking through all of the ethical dimensions that bartering or trading one’s eggs in order to gain access to freezing entails.

We have to set up a system where there’s independent advice and independent counseling; otherwise, I think we’re closer to exploitation.

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

Dr. Caplan is director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I had a case come to me of a 32-year-old resident who works in a hospital near where I am and was very interested in freezing her eggs. She wasn’t married and was getting worried that maybe she wouldn’t have a partner soon. She was also getting worried that the potential ability of her eggs to be fertilized would begin to decline, which is a phenomenon that does occur with age. She thought, I’m 32; maybe I should freeze my eggs now, as it’s better than to try freezing them when I’m 35 or 37. The potency may be far less.

There are many programs out there now. There have been academic programs for a long time that have been doing egg freezing, and there are many children who have been born successfully. However, it’s also true that people freeze their eggs when they’re 40 years old, and the likelihood of their “working,” if you will, is far less. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but age matters. This medical resident knew that and she decided to look into egg freezing.

Well, it turned out that egg freezing is not something that her student insurance plan – or most insurance plans in general – covers. The opportunity to do this is probably going to cost her about $10,000. There are many new egg-freezing infertility programs that have stared up that aren’t part of hospitals. There are clinics that are run for profit. They sometimes encourage women to freeze their eggs.

The student resident quickly found out that there were companies near her who would do egg freezing but would cut a deal if she agreed to take drugs to super-ovulate, make a large number of eggs, and they would be procured if she agreed to give half of them to other women who needed eggs for their infertility treatment. She could keep half and she could get very discounted treatment of egg freezing. In other words, she could barter her own eggs, said the clinic, if she was willing to accept the idea that she’d be donating them to others.

That may be a deal that she’s going to accept. She doesn’t have a path forward. She’s worried about freezing her eggs right now. But there are many ethical considerations that really have to be thought through here.

First and foremost, she’s giving eggs to others. They’re going to use them to try to make children. They can’t make their own eggs, for some reason. She’s going to have some biologically related kids out there. It used to be that you could say to someone who donated sperm or eggs that this will be anonymous.

But in today’s day and age with 23andMe, Ancestry, and better genetic testing, there’s a pretty good likelihood that somebody is going to find out that the person they thought was their biological mom isn’t, and they have someone out there who was the person who, in this case, donated an egg.

Is she willing to risk having that connection, that contact, to have someone enter her life in the future? It’s a situation where she’s donating the eggs, but I’ll tell you that the clinic is going to make far more money using the donated eggs, probably getting $10,000 or $15,000 a cycle with people who are trying to have a child. They’ll make much more money than she’s going to get by donating.

She may get a $5,000 discount, if you will, but the clinic has a business interest. The more they get women involved in bartering their eggs, the more they’re going to profit. In a sense, she’s being coerced, perhaps – I’m going to put it glibly – to sell cheaply. She probably is getting undervalue, even though she needs a path to do this egg freezing.

The other big issue is that we don’t know that egg freezing is going to work for her until someone tries to use those eggs. She may have her own infertility problem not due to age but to other things. Approximately 8%-9% of couples do have infertility problems, sometimes related to gametes. She may never get a partner. Maybe she doesn’t want to use these eggs on her own as a single mom. All of these issues have to be talked through.

What really troubles me here is not so much that someone would choose to barter their eggs, but that they don’t get counseling. They don’t get independent advice about thinking this all through. It’s turning into a business. A business has a commodity – her eggs – that they want. She’s getting more and more desperate, willing to cut a deal to get where she needs to be, but perhaps is not really thinking through all of the ethical dimensions that bartering or trading one’s eggs in order to gain access to freezing entails.

We have to set up a system where there’s independent advice and independent counseling; otherwise, I think we’re closer to exploitation.

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

Dr. Caplan is director, division of medical ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2022 National Quality Strategy is described as an “ambitious long-term initiative that aims to promote the highest quality outcomes and safest care for all individuals.” The strategy calls for a multidisciplinary, person-centric approach for individuals throughout the continuum of care, with an emphasis on historically underresourced communities. It is a commendable goal for an overburdened U.S. health care system that spends more than other high-income counties yet experiences poorer outcomes. But whole-person, person-centered care cannot be achieved under current misaligned quality measures that fail to measure what we purport to value: the quintuple aim of improved health outcomes, cost savings, patient satisfaction, clinician well-being, and health equity.
 

Lifestyle first

Clinical practice guidelines for many chronic diseases recommend lifestyle intervention as the first and optimal treatment. A growing body of evidence supports lifestyle behavior interventions to treat and, when used intensively, even reverse common chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, while also providing effective prevention for those conditions. However, no current quality measures consider lifestyle interventions. In fact, some quality measures unintentionally penalize physicians for successfully treating or reversing disease through lifestyle behavior interventions while rewarding clinicians for meeting process measures – usually adherence to medication – regardless of whether health outcomes improved.

Rewarding medication adherence for the treatment of diseases in which lifestyle is a primary therapy (such as hypertension), combined with other health care constraints (lack of lifestyle education, time to spend with patients, and infrastructure support) incentivizes physicians to skip the conversation about lifestyle changes and go straight to medication prescription. Meanwhile, the clinician who takes the extra time to guide a patient toward lifestyle interventions that could treat their current disease and prevent future diseases – without side effects – is penalized.

Misaligned quality measures like these can stifle clinical judgment and risk reducing the practice of medicine to mindless box-checking. In many cases, patients are not even informed that lifestyle behavior change may be a treatment option (much less the first recommended option) for their conditions. This delivery of care is not person-centered and, in fact, may raise questions about the adequacy of informed treatment consent.
 

Reimbursement barriers

Lifestyle medicine is a growing medical specialty that uses therapeutic lifestyle interventions as a primary modality to treat chronic conditions. Since certification began in 2017, almost 2500 US physicians and 1000 nonphysician health professionals have earned certification. Health systems, including the U.S. military, are increasingly integrating lifestyle medicine. There have been advancements since one survey found that more than half of lifestyle medicine clinicians reported receiving no reimbursement for lifestyle behavior interventions. However, barriers, especially in fee-for-service systems, still inhibit many patients from receiving insurance coverage for comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and whole-person treatments called intensive therapeutic lifestyle change (ITLC) programs.

Existing comprehensive lifestyle programs that patients are eligible for (ie, the Diabetes Prevention Program and intensive behavioral therapy) are often so poorly reimbursed that clinicians and health systems decline to offer them. An example of a well-reimbursed ITLC program is intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR), which remains underutilized and limited to a narrow segment of patients, despite ICR›s proven benefits for managing comorbid risk factors such as hemoglobin A1c and weight. Even when lifestyle intervention programs are available and patients are eligible to participate (often through shared medical appointments), patient copays for the frequent visits required to achieve and sustain behavior change – or the lack of reimbursement for interdisciplinary team members – discourage engagement.
 

Penalizing successful outcomes

Despite the fact that lifestyle behaviors are top contributors to health and, conversely, contribute to up to 80% of chronic diseases, few quality measures focus on screening for lifestyle factors or treating diseases with lifestyle interventions. An example of an existing quality measure is screening or treatment for harmful substance use.

Specific quality measures that penalize lifestyle medicine approaches include pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, and gout as well as approaches to rheumatoid arthritis.

Statins offer a useful example of the conundrum faced by clinicians who want to offer lifestyle interventions. A lifestyle medicine primary care physician had a patient covered by Medicare Advantage who was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. The patient had total cholesterol of 226 and a triglycerides level of 132. Instead of prescribing the routine statin, the physician prescribed lifestyle behavior modifications. Within 3 weeks, the patient›s total cholesterol improved to 171 and triglycerides to 75. This was a great success for the delighted patient. However, the CMS 5-Star Rating System assigned the primary care physician a grade of C rather than A, which put the physician›s 5-star rating at risk. Why? Because the system bases its score largely on medication compliance. The physician was penalized despite achieving the optimal health outcome, and at a lower cost than with medication. This misalignment does not incentivize patient-centered care because it disregards patient preference, shared decision-making, and evidence-based practice.
 

Risk adjustment

Rather than automatically managing disease with ever-increasing quantities of costly medications and procedures, lifestyle medicine clinicians first pursue a goal of health restoration when appropriate. But Medicare risk adjustment incentivizes physicians to manage rather than reverse disease. How much Medicare pays health plans is determined in part by how sick the patients are; the sicker the patient, the more Medicare pays, because those patients› costs are expected to be higher. This ensures that health plans are not penalized for enrolling sicker patients. But a physician utilizing diet alone to achieve remission in a patient with type 2 diabetes is penalized financially because, when the risk is adjusted, diabetes is no longer listed among the patient›s conditions. So, Medicare pays the physician less money. That misalignment incentivizes clinicians to manage the symptoms of type 2 diabetes rather than achieve remission, despite remission being the ideal clinical outcome.

Realigning quality measures

Quality measures were developed to quantify health care processes and outcomes, and to ensure the delivery of safe care to all patients. However, over time the number of quality measures has swelled to 2500, evolving into a confusing, time-consuming, and even soul-crushing responsibility for the physician.

Instead of relying heavily on process measures, we must incentivize outcome measures that honor patient autonomy and allow clinicians to offer lifestyle intervention as the first line of treatment. Risk-score calculations should be adjusted so that we stop incentivizing disease management and penalizing disease reversal.

CMS’s proposed development of “a universal foundation” of quality measures is an opportunity to begin the realignment of quality measures and values. This foundation is intended to establish more consistent and meaningful measures, reduce clinician burnout by streamlining the reporting process, and advance health equity. For this change to be successful, it is vital that lifestyle behavior interventions – optimal nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, social connections, stress management, and avoidance of harmful substances – become the foundation of universal quality measures. This will ensure that every clinician is incentivized to discuss lifestyle behaviors with patients and pursue the first clinical step recommended by clinical practice guidelines for most chronic diseases. Only then can we truly deliver high-value, whole-person, person-centered care and achieve the quintuple aim.

Dr. Patel is president-elect, American College of Lifestyle Medicine; Lifestyle Medicine Medical Director, Wellvana Health, Midland, Tex. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2022 National Quality Strategy is described as an “ambitious long-term initiative that aims to promote the highest quality outcomes and safest care for all individuals.” The strategy calls for a multidisciplinary, person-centric approach for individuals throughout the continuum of care, with an emphasis on historically underresourced communities. It is a commendable goal for an overburdened U.S. health care system that spends more than other high-income counties yet experiences poorer outcomes. But whole-person, person-centered care cannot be achieved under current misaligned quality measures that fail to measure what we purport to value: the quintuple aim of improved health outcomes, cost savings, patient satisfaction, clinician well-being, and health equity.
 

Lifestyle first

Clinical practice guidelines for many chronic diseases recommend lifestyle intervention as the first and optimal treatment. A growing body of evidence supports lifestyle behavior interventions to treat and, when used intensively, even reverse common chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, while also providing effective prevention for those conditions. However, no current quality measures consider lifestyle interventions. In fact, some quality measures unintentionally penalize physicians for successfully treating or reversing disease through lifestyle behavior interventions while rewarding clinicians for meeting process measures – usually adherence to medication – regardless of whether health outcomes improved.

Rewarding medication adherence for the treatment of diseases in which lifestyle is a primary therapy (such as hypertension), combined with other health care constraints (lack of lifestyle education, time to spend with patients, and infrastructure support) incentivizes physicians to skip the conversation about lifestyle changes and go straight to medication prescription. Meanwhile, the clinician who takes the extra time to guide a patient toward lifestyle interventions that could treat their current disease and prevent future diseases – without side effects – is penalized.

Misaligned quality measures like these can stifle clinical judgment and risk reducing the practice of medicine to mindless box-checking. In many cases, patients are not even informed that lifestyle behavior change may be a treatment option (much less the first recommended option) for their conditions. This delivery of care is not person-centered and, in fact, may raise questions about the adequacy of informed treatment consent.
 

Reimbursement barriers

Lifestyle medicine is a growing medical specialty that uses therapeutic lifestyle interventions as a primary modality to treat chronic conditions. Since certification began in 2017, almost 2500 US physicians and 1000 nonphysician health professionals have earned certification. Health systems, including the U.S. military, are increasingly integrating lifestyle medicine. There have been advancements since one survey found that more than half of lifestyle medicine clinicians reported receiving no reimbursement for lifestyle behavior interventions. However, barriers, especially in fee-for-service systems, still inhibit many patients from receiving insurance coverage for comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and whole-person treatments called intensive therapeutic lifestyle change (ITLC) programs.

Existing comprehensive lifestyle programs that patients are eligible for (ie, the Diabetes Prevention Program and intensive behavioral therapy) are often so poorly reimbursed that clinicians and health systems decline to offer them. An example of a well-reimbursed ITLC program is intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR), which remains underutilized and limited to a narrow segment of patients, despite ICR›s proven benefits for managing comorbid risk factors such as hemoglobin A1c and weight. Even when lifestyle intervention programs are available and patients are eligible to participate (often through shared medical appointments), patient copays for the frequent visits required to achieve and sustain behavior change – or the lack of reimbursement for interdisciplinary team members – discourage engagement.
 

Penalizing successful outcomes

Despite the fact that lifestyle behaviors are top contributors to health and, conversely, contribute to up to 80% of chronic diseases, few quality measures focus on screening for lifestyle factors or treating diseases with lifestyle interventions. An example of an existing quality measure is screening or treatment for harmful substance use.

Specific quality measures that penalize lifestyle medicine approaches include pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, and gout as well as approaches to rheumatoid arthritis.

Statins offer a useful example of the conundrum faced by clinicians who want to offer lifestyle interventions. A lifestyle medicine primary care physician had a patient covered by Medicare Advantage who was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. The patient had total cholesterol of 226 and a triglycerides level of 132. Instead of prescribing the routine statin, the physician prescribed lifestyle behavior modifications. Within 3 weeks, the patient›s total cholesterol improved to 171 and triglycerides to 75. This was a great success for the delighted patient. However, the CMS 5-Star Rating System assigned the primary care physician a grade of C rather than A, which put the physician›s 5-star rating at risk. Why? Because the system bases its score largely on medication compliance. The physician was penalized despite achieving the optimal health outcome, and at a lower cost than with medication. This misalignment does not incentivize patient-centered care because it disregards patient preference, shared decision-making, and evidence-based practice.
 

Risk adjustment

Rather than automatically managing disease with ever-increasing quantities of costly medications and procedures, lifestyle medicine clinicians first pursue a goal of health restoration when appropriate. But Medicare risk adjustment incentivizes physicians to manage rather than reverse disease. How much Medicare pays health plans is determined in part by how sick the patients are; the sicker the patient, the more Medicare pays, because those patients› costs are expected to be higher. This ensures that health plans are not penalized for enrolling sicker patients. But a physician utilizing diet alone to achieve remission in a patient with type 2 diabetes is penalized financially because, when the risk is adjusted, diabetes is no longer listed among the patient›s conditions. So, Medicare pays the physician less money. That misalignment incentivizes clinicians to manage the symptoms of type 2 diabetes rather than achieve remission, despite remission being the ideal clinical outcome.

Realigning quality measures

Quality measures were developed to quantify health care processes and outcomes, and to ensure the delivery of safe care to all patients. However, over time the number of quality measures has swelled to 2500, evolving into a confusing, time-consuming, and even soul-crushing responsibility for the physician.

Instead of relying heavily on process measures, we must incentivize outcome measures that honor patient autonomy and allow clinicians to offer lifestyle intervention as the first line of treatment. Risk-score calculations should be adjusted so that we stop incentivizing disease management and penalizing disease reversal.

CMS’s proposed development of “a universal foundation” of quality measures is an opportunity to begin the realignment of quality measures and values. This foundation is intended to establish more consistent and meaningful measures, reduce clinician burnout by streamlining the reporting process, and advance health equity. For this change to be successful, it is vital that lifestyle behavior interventions – optimal nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, social connections, stress management, and avoidance of harmful substances – become the foundation of universal quality measures. This will ensure that every clinician is incentivized to discuss lifestyle behaviors with patients and pursue the first clinical step recommended by clinical practice guidelines for most chronic diseases. Only then can we truly deliver high-value, whole-person, person-centered care and achieve the quintuple aim.

Dr. Patel is president-elect, American College of Lifestyle Medicine; Lifestyle Medicine Medical Director, Wellvana Health, Midland, Tex. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2022 National Quality Strategy is described as an “ambitious long-term initiative that aims to promote the highest quality outcomes and safest care for all individuals.” The strategy calls for a multidisciplinary, person-centric approach for individuals throughout the continuum of care, with an emphasis on historically underresourced communities. It is a commendable goal for an overburdened U.S. health care system that spends more than other high-income counties yet experiences poorer outcomes. But whole-person, person-centered care cannot be achieved under current misaligned quality measures that fail to measure what we purport to value: the quintuple aim of improved health outcomes, cost savings, patient satisfaction, clinician well-being, and health equity.
 

Lifestyle first

Clinical practice guidelines for many chronic diseases recommend lifestyle intervention as the first and optimal treatment. A growing body of evidence supports lifestyle behavior interventions to treat and, when used intensively, even reverse common chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, while also providing effective prevention for those conditions. However, no current quality measures consider lifestyle interventions. In fact, some quality measures unintentionally penalize physicians for successfully treating or reversing disease through lifestyle behavior interventions while rewarding clinicians for meeting process measures – usually adherence to medication – regardless of whether health outcomes improved.

Rewarding medication adherence for the treatment of diseases in which lifestyle is a primary therapy (such as hypertension), combined with other health care constraints (lack of lifestyle education, time to spend with patients, and infrastructure support) incentivizes physicians to skip the conversation about lifestyle changes and go straight to medication prescription. Meanwhile, the clinician who takes the extra time to guide a patient toward lifestyle interventions that could treat their current disease and prevent future diseases – without side effects – is penalized.

Misaligned quality measures like these can stifle clinical judgment and risk reducing the practice of medicine to mindless box-checking. In many cases, patients are not even informed that lifestyle behavior change may be a treatment option (much less the first recommended option) for their conditions. This delivery of care is not person-centered and, in fact, may raise questions about the adequacy of informed treatment consent.
 

Reimbursement barriers

Lifestyle medicine is a growing medical specialty that uses therapeutic lifestyle interventions as a primary modality to treat chronic conditions. Since certification began in 2017, almost 2500 US physicians and 1000 nonphysician health professionals have earned certification. Health systems, including the U.S. military, are increasingly integrating lifestyle medicine. There have been advancements since one survey found that more than half of lifestyle medicine clinicians reported receiving no reimbursement for lifestyle behavior interventions. However, barriers, especially in fee-for-service systems, still inhibit many patients from receiving insurance coverage for comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and whole-person treatments called intensive therapeutic lifestyle change (ITLC) programs.

Existing comprehensive lifestyle programs that patients are eligible for (ie, the Diabetes Prevention Program and intensive behavioral therapy) are often so poorly reimbursed that clinicians and health systems decline to offer them. An example of a well-reimbursed ITLC program is intensive cardiac rehabilitation (ICR), which remains underutilized and limited to a narrow segment of patients, despite ICR›s proven benefits for managing comorbid risk factors such as hemoglobin A1c and weight. Even when lifestyle intervention programs are available and patients are eligible to participate (often through shared medical appointments), patient copays for the frequent visits required to achieve and sustain behavior change – or the lack of reimbursement for interdisciplinary team members – discourage engagement.
 

Penalizing successful outcomes

Despite the fact that lifestyle behaviors are top contributors to health and, conversely, contribute to up to 80% of chronic diseases, few quality measures focus on screening for lifestyle factors or treating diseases with lifestyle interventions. An example of an existing quality measure is screening or treatment for harmful substance use.

Specific quality measures that penalize lifestyle medicine approaches include pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, osteoporosis, and gout as well as approaches to rheumatoid arthritis.

Statins offer a useful example of the conundrum faced by clinicians who want to offer lifestyle interventions. A lifestyle medicine primary care physician had a patient covered by Medicare Advantage who was diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. The patient had total cholesterol of 226 and a triglycerides level of 132. Instead of prescribing the routine statin, the physician prescribed lifestyle behavior modifications. Within 3 weeks, the patient›s total cholesterol improved to 171 and triglycerides to 75. This was a great success for the delighted patient. However, the CMS 5-Star Rating System assigned the primary care physician a grade of C rather than A, which put the physician›s 5-star rating at risk. Why? Because the system bases its score largely on medication compliance. The physician was penalized despite achieving the optimal health outcome, and at a lower cost than with medication. This misalignment does not incentivize patient-centered care because it disregards patient preference, shared decision-making, and evidence-based practice.
 

Risk adjustment

Rather than automatically managing disease with ever-increasing quantities of costly medications and procedures, lifestyle medicine clinicians first pursue a goal of health restoration when appropriate. But Medicare risk adjustment incentivizes physicians to manage rather than reverse disease. How much Medicare pays health plans is determined in part by how sick the patients are; the sicker the patient, the more Medicare pays, because those patients› costs are expected to be higher. This ensures that health plans are not penalized for enrolling sicker patients. But a physician utilizing diet alone to achieve remission in a patient with type 2 diabetes is penalized financially because, when the risk is adjusted, diabetes is no longer listed among the patient›s conditions. So, Medicare pays the physician less money. That misalignment incentivizes clinicians to manage the symptoms of type 2 diabetes rather than achieve remission, despite remission being the ideal clinical outcome.

Realigning quality measures

Quality measures were developed to quantify health care processes and outcomes, and to ensure the delivery of safe care to all patients. However, over time the number of quality measures has swelled to 2500, evolving into a confusing, time-consuming, and even soul-crushing responsibility for the physician.

Instead of relying heavily on process measures, we must incentivize outcome measures that honor patient autonomy and allow clinicians to offer lifestyle intervention as the first line of treatment. Risk-score calculations should be adjusted so that we stop incentivizing disease management and penalizing disease reversal.

CMS’s proposed development of “a universal foundation” of quality measures is an opportunity to begin the realignment of quality measures and values. This foundation is intended to establish more consistent and meaningful measures, reduce clinician burnout by streamlining the reporting process, and advance health equity. For this change to be successful, it is vital that lifestyle behavior interventions – optimal nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, social connections, stress management, and avoidance of harmful substances – become the foundation of universal quality measures. This will ensure that every clinician is incentivized to discuss lifestyle behaviors with patients and pursue the first clinical step recommended by clinical practice guidelines for most chronic diseases. Only then can we truly deliver high-value, whole-person, person-centered care and achieve the quintuple aim.

Dr. Patel is president-elect, American College of Lifestyle Medicine; Lifestyle Medicine Medical Director, Wellvana Health, Midland, Tex. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vaginal dryness is killing women.

I mean it. It’s actually killing women.

What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.

GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.

What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.

The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.

Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.

There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.

These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.

We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.

Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.

You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vaginal dryness is killing women.

I mean it. It’s actually killing women.

What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.

GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.

What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.

The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.

Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.

There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.

These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.

We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.

Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.

You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Vaginal dryness is killing women.

I mean it. It’s actually killing women.

What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.

GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.

What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.

The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.

Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.

There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.

These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.

We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.

Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.

You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approval of zuranolone for postpartum depression in August 2023 has raised many important questions (and opinions) about its future use in clinical practice.

At the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, we treat women and pregnant people throughout hormonal transitions, including pregnancy and the postpartum, and have been part of development, research, and now delivery of both brexanolone and zuranolone. While we are excited about new tools in the arsenal for alleviating maternal mental health, we also want to be clear that our work is far from complete and continued efforts to care for pregnant people and their families are imperative.

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

What is zuranolone?

Zuranolone (brand name Zurzuvae) is an oral medication developed by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen. It is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA_A receptor, the brain’s major inhibitory system. As a positive allosteric modulator, it increases the sensitivity of the GABA_A receptor to GABA.

Zuranolone is very similar to brexanolone, a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid byproduct of progesterone (see below). However, zuranolone is not an oral form of brexanolone – it was slightly modified to ensure good oral stability and bioavailability. It is metabolized by the hepatic enzyme CYP3A4 and has a half-life of 16-23 hours. Zurzuvae is currently produced in capsule form.
 

What does zuranolone treat?

Zuranolone is the first FDA-approved oral drug for postpartum depression (PPD). It follows brexanolone, an intravenous drug, which was the first FDA-approved medication for PPD. Though these are the first medications with specific approval for PDD, many other treatment options are currently available including therapy, SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other treatments used in major depression.

How does zuranolone work?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which means that it is a steroid that goes into and acts on the brain. Zuranolone binds to different GABA receptor subunits from those bound by other positive modulators, such as benzodiazepines (for example, lorazepam). As a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a metabolite of progesterone which rises dramatically in pregnancy then drops during labor and delivery, zuranolone was originally thought to mitigate the response to this drop in patients that are vulnerable to it during the postpartum. An alternative proposed mechanism is that the increased GABAergic, inhibitory signaling with zuranolone may act directly to decrease depression irrespective of the exact mechanism by which the depression occurred.

How was it studied?

Zuranolone was studied in women with severe postpartum depression and had to meet criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy (about 28 weeks’ gestation) and no later than 4 weeks post partum. Patients were excluded from these studies if they had a history of bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, attempted suicide, or if they were at risk for suicide.

The two phase 3 clinical trials that led to FDA approval are ROBIN and SKYLARK. These studies measured the efficacy and safety of zuranolone at 30 mg and 50 mg, respectively, and met their end points of rapid improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms in postpartum depression.
 

When will we be able to start using it?

It is anticipated that zuranolone will become commercially available in early 2024.

Who can prescribe it?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Those with medical licenses. Most people will likely receive treatment from their obstetric, family medicine, or psychiatric clinicians.

How much will it cost?

The manufacturers have not released this information as of August 2023.

What sort of doses and duration is recommended?

The current FDA recommended dose is 50 mg for 14 days, taken once per evening with a fatty meal. The dose can be reduced to 40 mg if there are central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects, and to 30 mg if the patient has severe hepatic or moderate-severe renal impairment. There are currently no studies on longer courses of treatment.

What happens if the patient relapses after a 14-day trial?

While there is no clear guidance, an open-label trial (The SHORELINE Study) demonstrated that a repeated 14-day administration can restore clinical response.

What are the side effects?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Common side effects include drowsiness, dizziness, lower energy, diarrhea, and symptoms similar to the common cold. Zuranolone can act like a CNS depressant and can lead to sedation and somnolence.

Are there any boxed warnings?

Because of the CNS depressant effects, zuranolone was given a boxed warning that patients should not drive or operate heavy machinery within 12 hours of taking the medication as it may lead to impairment. Similar to other antidepressants, there is also a warning that zuranolone may increase risk for suicidal thoughts in patients under 24 years old.

Can it be used with other medications?

Yes. In the original trials, women were allowed to remain on medications treating their depressive symptoms (such as SSRIs and SNRIs). According to the FDA, zuranolone can be used alone or with other antidepressants.

Are there any medicines to avoid?

We recommend caution with other medications which may increase sedation, such as benzodiazepines.

Can it be used with birth control?

Yes. In fact, because the outcomes on a fetus are not yet studied, it is recommended that patients be on concurrent birth control during treatment and for a week after cessation. This does not mean that zuranolone is known to cause issues with fetal development, but rather that we do not know at this time.

Can it be used in pregnancy?

As above, the outcomes on fetal development are not known at this time, nor are the effects of zuranolone on labor and delivery. More research will need to be done to understand if there is risk with taking zuranolone during pregnancy. It should be noted that allopregnanolone levels ordinarily reach quite high levels during pregnancy.
 

Long-term side effects?

Long-term side effects are unknown. The study duration of ROBIN and SKYLARK was 45 days.

Breastfeeding?

Use in lactation has not yet been studied. Continued research is needed.

Can it be used in mood changes related to other reproductive changes or diagnoses like premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause?

The mechanism by which zuranolone is thought to work – that is, during changes in reproductive hormones – is implicated in other reproductive transitions such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause when reproductive hormones are fluctuating, though at lower levels than in pregnancy. Research will be required to assess efficacy and safety; however, the mechanistic reasons is worth pursuing. Additionally, zuranolone has not been studied in postpartum psychosis.

Can zuranolone be used to treat other affective conditions besides postpartum depression? Bipolar disorder?

Zuranolone is currently only approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It has not received FDA approval for major depression outside of the perinatal period at this time. Whether it may be beneficial for patients with a depressive episode that is part of an underlying bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illness is not yet known.

Anxiety?

Along with depressive symptoms, women who received zuranolone in the clinical trials also had improvements in anxiety symptoms. These findings provide some hope that zuranolone may eventually be beneficial in patients with anxiety.

However, to date zuranolone has not been directly studied as a treatment for anxiety disorders (such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, etc.), so its efficacy for these illnesses is currently unknown.
 

Insomnia?

In a study of 153 postpartum women, randomized to placebo or zuranolone, scale questions for insomnia were improved in the group receiving zuranolone. This provides some hope that, if zuranolone is appropriate, concurrent polypharmacy with a sleep aid can be avoided. Additionally, future evaluation of use in insomnia outside of PPD may be warranted.

How is it different from brexanolone?

The two are slightly different molecules. Brexanolone is synthetically identical to allopregnanolone and zuranolone has been altered to be active and orally bioavailable.

Brexanolone is a 60-hour infusion that requires hospital admission at an approved health care site. Zuranolone is an oral at-home once-daily dosing treatment for 14 days. Zuranolone does not require enrollment in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for risk of excessive sedation and sudden loss of consciousness.
 

When would you consider zuranolone vs. brexanolone vs. other antidepressants?

Zuranolone and brexanolone are rapid-acting antidepressants with a response within 14 days or 60 hours, respectively. Antidepressants such as SSRIs/SNRIs are still available, well studied, and work, although take longer to reach clinical efficacy and are accompanied by potentially troubling side effects (for example, weight gain, sexual dysfunction).

Time to treatment effect should be considered when assessing severity of symptoms and functional impairment of the mother and the overall family unit. Brexanolone requires continuous monitoring which may be beneficial for women who are severely impaired and may benefit from frequent clinical monitoring. Brexanolone does not require a dose reduction with hepatic impairment, however, should be avoided in end-stage renal disease because of the potential accumulation of the solubilizing agent.
 

Where can I find more information?

Many states have maternal mental health consultation lines (examples include NCMATTERS here in North Carolina and MCPAP for Moms in Massachusetts) for clinicians (mental health, primary care, and obstetricians) that can be utilized for questions about prescribing. Postpartum Support International also has a clinician line for those without state services.

We plan to update this entry upon market release and access to new information.

Dr. Riddle and Dr. Nathan are assistant professors in the department of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Richardson is a perinatal psychiatry fellow, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Rubinow is Distinguished Professor in the department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Meltzer-Brody is Assad Meymandi Distinguished Professor and Chair, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill.

References

Deligiannidis KM et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 30;84(1):22m14475. doi: 10.4088/JCP.22m14475.

Deligiannidis KM et al. . Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023 May;141(5S):64S-65S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000930588.16136.3f.

Deligiannidis KM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 1;180(9):668-75. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

Deligiannidis KM et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 1;78(9):951-59. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559.

FDA Approves First Oral Treatment for Postpartum Depression. 2023 Aug 4. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-oral-treatment-postpartum-depression

ZURZUVAE – HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/217369s000lbl.pdf

The Food and Drug Administration approval of zuranolone for postpartum depression in August 2023 has raised many important questions (and opinions) about its future use in clinical practice.

At the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, we treat women and pregnant people throughout hormonal transitions, including pregnancy and the postpartum, and have been part of development, research, and now delivery of both brexanolone and zuranolone. While we are excited about new tools in the arsenal for alleviating maternal mental health, we also want to be clear that our work is far from complete and continued efforts to care for pregnant people and their families are imperative.

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

What is zuranolone?

Zuranolone (brand name Zurzuvae) is an oral medication developed by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen. It is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA_A receptor, the brain’s major inhibitory system. As a positive allosteric modulator, it increases the sensitivity of the GABA_A receptor to GABA.

Zuranolone is very similar to brexanolone, a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid byproduct of progesterone (see below). However, zuranolone is not an oral form of brexanolone – it was slightly modified to ensure good oral stability and bioavailability. It is metabolized by the hepatic enzyme CYP3A4 and has a half-life of 16-23 hours. Zurzuvae is currently produced in capsule form.
 

What does zuranolone treat?

Zuranolone is the first FDA-approved oral drug for postpartum depression (PPD). It follows brexanolone, an intravenous drug, which was the first FDA-approved medication for PPD. Though these are the first medications with specific approval for PDD, many other treatment options are currently available including therapy, SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other treatments used in major depression.

How does zuranolone work?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which means that it is a steroid that goes into and acts on the brain. Zuranolone binds to different GABA receptor subunits from those bound by other positive modulators, such as benzodiazepines (for example, lorazepam). As a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a metabolite of progesterone which rises dramatically in pregnancy then drops during labor and delivery, zuranolone was originally thought to mitigate the response to this drop in patients that are vulnerable to it during the postpartum. An alternative proposed mechanism is that the increased GABAergic, inhibitory signaling with zuranolone may act directly to decrease depression irrespective of the exact mechanism by which the depression occurred.

How was it studied?

Zuranolone was studied in women with severe postpartum depression and had to meet criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy (about 28 weeks’ gestation) and no later than 4 weeks post partum. Patients were excluded from these studies if they had a history of bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, attempted suicide, or if they were at risk for suicide.

The two phase 3 clinical trials that led to FDA approval are ROBIN and SKYLARK. These studies measured the efficacy and safety of zuranolone at 30 mg and 50 mg, respectively, and met their end points of rapid improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms in postpartum depression.
 

When will we be able to start using it?

It is anticipated that zuranolone will become commercially available in early 2024.

Who can prescribe it?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Those with medical licenses. Most people will likely receive treatment from their obstetric, family medicine, or psychiatric clinicians.

How much will it cost?

The manufacturers have not released this information as of August 2023.

What sort of doses and duration is recommended?

The current FDA recommended dose is 50 mg for 14 days, taken once per evening with a fatty meal. The dose can be reduced to 40 mg if there are central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects, and to 30 mg if the patient has severe hepatic or moderate-severe renal impairment. There are currently no studies on longer courses of treatment.

What happens if the patient relapses after a 14-day trial?

While there is no clear guidance, an open-label trial (The SHORELINE Study) demonstrated that a repeated 14-day administration can restore clinical response.

What are the side effects?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Common side effects include drowsiness, dizziness, lower energy, diarrhea, and symptoms similar to the common cold. Zuranolone can act like a CNS depressant and can lead to sedation and somnolence.

Are there any boxed warnings?

Because of the CNS depressant effects, zuranolone was given a boxed warning that patients should not drive or operate heavy machinery within 12 hours of taking the medication as it may lead to impairment. Similar to other antidepressants, there is also a warning that zuranolone may increase risk for suicidal thoughts in patients under 24 years old.

Can it be used with other medications?

Yes. In the original trials, women were allowed to remain on medications treating their depressive symptoms (such as SSRIs and SNRIs). According to the FDA, zuranolone can be used alone or with other antidepressants.

Are there any medicines to avoid?

We recommend caution with other medications which may increase sedation, such as benzodiazepines.

Can it be used with birth control?

Yes. In fact, because the outcomes on a fetus are not yet studied, it is recommended that patients be on concurrent birth control during treatment and for a week after cessation. This does not mean that zuranolone is known to cause issues with fetal development, but rather that we do not know at this time.

Can it be used in pregnancy?

As above, the outcomes on fetal development are not known at this time, nor are the effects of zuranolone on labor and delivery. More research will need to be done to understand if there is risk with taking zuranolone during pregnancy. It should be noted that allopregnanolone levels ordinarily reach quite high levels during pregnancy.
 

Long-term side effects?

Long-term side effects are unknown. The study duration of ROBIN and SKYLARK was 45 days.

Breastfeeding?

Use in lactation has not yet been studied. Continued research is needed.

Can it be used in mood changes related to other reproductive changes or diagnoses like premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause?

The mechanism by which zuranolone is thought to work – that is, during changes in reproductive hormones – is implicated in other reproductive transitions such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause when reproductive hormones are fluctuating, though at lower levels than in pregnancy. Research will be required to assess efficacy and safety; however, the mechanistic reasons is worth pursuing. Additionally, zuranolone has not been studied in postpartum psychosis.

Can zuranolone be used to treat other affective conditions besides postpartum depression? Bipolar disorder?

Zuranolone is currently only approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It has not received FDA approval for major depression outside of the perinatal period at this time. Whether it may be beneficial for patients with a depressive episode that is part of an underlying bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illness is not yet known.

Anxiety?

Along with depressive symptoms, women who received zuranolone in the clinical trials also had improvements in anxiety symptoms. These findings provide some hope that zuranolone may eventually be beneficial in patients with anxiety.

However, to date zuranolone has not been directly studied as a treatment for anxiety disorders (such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, etc.), so its efficacy for these illnesses is currently unknown.
 

Insomnia?

In a study of 153 postpartum women, randomized to placebo or zuranolone, scale questions for insomnia were improved in the group receiving zuranolone. This provides some hope that, if zuranolone is appropriate, concurrent polypharmacy with a sleep aid can be avoided. Additionally, future evaluation of use in insomnia outside of PPD may be warranted.

How is it different from brexanolone?

The two are slightly different molecules. Brexanolone is synthetically identical to allopregnanolone and zuranolone has been altered to be active and orally bioavailable.

Brexanolone is a 60-hour infusion that requires hospital admission at an approved health care site. Zuranolone is an oral at-home once-daily dosing treatment for 14 days. Zuranolone does not require enrollment in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for risk of excessive sedation and sudden loss of consciousness.
 

When would you consider zuranolone vs. brexanolone vs. other antidepressants?

Zuranolone and brexanolone are rapid-acting antidepressants with a response within 14 days or 60 hours, respectively. Antidepressants such as SSRIs/SNRIs are still available, well studied, and work, although take longer to reach clinical efficacy and are accompanied by potentially troubling side effects (for example, weight gain, sexual dysfunction).

Time to treatment effect should be considered when assessing severity of symptoms and functional impairment of the mother and the overall family unit. Brexanolone requires continuous monitoring which may be beneficial for women who are severely impaired and may benefit from frequent clinical monitoring. Brexanolone does not require a dose reduction with hepatic impairment, however, should be avoided in end-stage renal disease because of the potential accumulation of the solubilizing agent.
 

Where can I find more information?

Many states have maternal mental health consultation lines (examples include NCMATTERS here in North Carolina and MCPAP for Moms in Massachusetts) for clinicians (mental health, primary care, and obstetricians) that can be utilized for questions about prescribing. Postpartum Support International also has a clinician line for those without state services.

We plan to update this entry upon market release and access to new information.

Dr. Riddle and Dr. Nathan are assistant professors in the department of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Richardson is a perinatal psychiatry fellow, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Rubinow is Distinguished Professor in the department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Meltzer-Brody is Assad Meymandi Distinguished Professor and Chair, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill.

References

Deligiannidis KM et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 30;84(1):22m14475. doi: 10.4088/JCP.22m14475.

Deligiannidis KM et al. . Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023 May;141(5S):64S-65S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000930588.16136.3f.

Deligiannidis KM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 1;180(9):668-75. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

Deligiannidis KM et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 1;78(9):951-59. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559.

FDA Approves First Oral Treatment for Postpartum Depression. 2023 Aug 4. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-oral-treatment-postpartum-depression

ZURZUVAE – HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/217369s000lbl.pdf

The Food and Drug Administration approval of zuranolone for postpartum depression in August 2023 has raised many important questions (and opinions) about its future use in clinical practice.

At the UNC-Chapel Hill Center for Women’s Mood Disorders, we treat women and pregnant people throughout hormonal transitions, including pregnancy and the postpartum, and have been part of development, research, and now delivery of both brexanolone and zuranolone. While we are excited about new tools in the arsenal for alleviating maternal mental health, we also want to be clear that our work is far from complete and continued efforts to care for pregnant people and their families are imperative.

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

What is zuranolone?

Zuranolone (brand name Zurzuvae) is an oral medication developed by Sage Therapeutics and Biogen. It is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA_A receptor, the brain’s major inhibitory system. As a positive allosteric modulator, it increases the sensitivity of the GABA_A receptor to GABA.

Zuranolone is very similar to brexanolone, a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid byproduct of progesterone (see below). However, zuranolone is not an oral form of brexanolone – it was slightly modified to ensure good oral stability and bioavailability. It is metabolized by the hepatic enzyme CYP3A4 and has a half-life of 16-23 hours. Zurzuvae is currently produced in capsule form.
 

What does zuranolone treat?

Zuranolone is the first FDA-approved oral drug for postpartum depression (PPD). It follows brexanolone, an intravenous drug, which was the first FDA-approved medication for PPD. Though these are the first medications with specific approval for PDD, many other treatment options are currently available including therapy, SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other treatments used in major depression.

How does zuranolone work?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which means that it is a steroid that goes into and acts on the brain. Zuranolone binds to different GABA receptor subunits from those bound by other positive modulators, such as benzodiazepines (for example, lorazepam). As a synthetic form of allopregnanolone, a metabolite of progesterone which rises dramatically in pregnancy then drops during labor and delivery, zuranolone was originally thought to mitigate the response to this drop in patients that are vulnerable to it during the postpartum. An alternative proposed mechanism is that the increased GABAergic, inhibitory signaling with zuranolone may act directly to decrease depression irrespective of the exact mechanism by which the depression occurred.

How was it studied?

Zuranolone was studied in women with severe postpartum depression and had to meet criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy (about 28 weeks’ gestation) and no later than 4 weeks post partum. Patients were excluded from these studies if they had a history of bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, attempted suicide, or if they were at risk for suicide.

The two phase 3 clinical trials that led to FDA approval are ROBIN and SKYLARK. These studies measured the efficacy and safety of zuranolone at 30 mg and 50 mg, respectively, and met their end points of rapid improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms in postpartum depression.
 

When will we be able to start using it?

It is anticipated that zuranolone will become commercially available in early 2024.

Who can prescribe it?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Those with medical licenses. Most people will likely receive treatment from their obstetric, family medicine, or psychiatric clinicians.

How much will it cost?

The manufacturers have not released this information as of August 2023.

What sort of doses and duration is recommended?

The current FDA recommended dose is 50 mg for 14 days, taken once per evening with a fatty meal. The dose can be reduced to 40 mg if there are central nervous system (CNS) depressant effects, and to 30 mg if the patient has severe hepatic or moderate-severe renal impairment. There are currently no studies on longer courses of treatment.

What happens if the patient relapses after a 14-day trial?

While there is no clear guidance, an open-label trial (The SHORELINE Study) demonstrated that a repeated 14-day administration can restore clinical response.

What are the side effects?

courtesy UNC-Chapel Hill

Common side effects include drowsiness, dizziness, lower energy, diarrhea, and symptoms similar to the common cold. Zuranolone can act like a CNS depressant and can lead to sedation and somnolence.

Are there any boxed warnings?

Because of the CNS depressant effects, zuranolone was given a boxed warning that patients should not drive or operate heavy machinery within 12 hours of taking the medication as it may lead to impairment. Similar to other antidepressants, there is also a warning that zuranolone may increase risk for suicidal thoughts in patients under 24 years old.

Can it be used with other medications?

Yes. In the original trials, women were allowed to remain on medications treating their depressive symptoms (such as SSRIs and SNRIs). According to the FDA, zuranolone can be used alone or with other antidepressants.

Are there any medicines to avoid?

We recommend caution with other medications which may increase sedation, such as benzodiazepines.

Can it be used with birth control?

Yes. In fact, because the outcomes on a fetus are not yet studied, it is recommended that patients be on concurrent birth control during treatment and for a week after cessation. This does not mean that zuranolone is known to cause issues with fetal development, but rather that we do not know at this time.

Can it be used in pregnancy?

As above, the outcomes on fetal development are not known at this time, nor are the effects of zuranolone on labor and delivery. More research will need to be done to understand if there is risk with taking zuranolone during pregnancy. It should be noted that allopregnanolone levels ordinarily reach quite high levels during pregnancy.
 

Long-term side effects?

Long-term side effects are unknown. The study duration of ROBIN and SKYLARK was 45 days.

Breastfeeding?

Use in lactation has not yet been studied. Continued research is needed.

Can it be used in mood changes related to other reproductive changes or diagnoses like premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause?

The mechanism by which zuranolone is thought to work – that is, during changes in reproductive hormones – is implicated in other reproductive transitions such as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and perimenopause when reproductive hormones are fluctuating, though at lower levels than in pregnancy. Research will be required to assess efficacy and safety; however, the mechanistic reasons is worth pursuing. Additionally, zuranolone has not been studied in postpartum psychosis.

Can zuranolone be used to treat other affective conditions besides postpartum depression? Bipolar disorder?

Zuranolone is currently only approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It has not received FDA approval for major depression outside of the perinatal period at this time. Whether it may be beneficial for patients with a depressive episode that is part of an underlying bipolar disorder or other psychiatric illness is not yet known.

Anxiety?

Along with depressive symptoms, women who received zuranolone in the clinical trials also had improvements in anxiety symptoms. These findings provide some hope that zuranolone may eventually be beneficial in patients with anxiety.

However, to date zuranolone has not been directly studied as a treatment for anxiety disorders (such as generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, etc.), so its efficacy for these illnesses is currently unknown.
 

Insomnia?

In a study of 153 postpartum women, randomized to placebo or zuranolone, scale questions for insomnia were improved in the group receiving zuranolone. This provides some hope that, if zuranolone is appropriate, concurrent polypharmacy with a sleep aid can be avoided. Additionally, future evaluation of use in insomnia outside of PPD may be warranted.

How is it different from brexanolone?

The two are slightly different molecules. Brexanolone is synthetically identical to allopregnanolone and zuranolone has been altered to be active and orally bioavailable.

Brexanolone is a 60-hour infusion that requires hospital admission at an approved health care site. Zuranolone is an oral at-home once-daily dosing treatment for 14 days. Zuranolone does not require enrollment in a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for risk of excessive sedation and sudden loss of consciousness.
 

When would you consider zuranolone vs. brexanolone vs. other antidepressants?

Zuranolone and brexanolone are rapid-acting antidepressants with a response within 14 days or 60 hours, respectively. Antidepressants such as SSRIs/SNRIs are still available, well studied, and work, although take longer to reach clinical efficacy and are accompanied by potentially troubling side effects (for example, weight gain, sexual dysfunction).

Time to treatment effect should be considered when assessing severity of symptoms and functional impairment of the mother and the overall family unit. Brexanolone requires continuous monitoring which may be beneficial for women who are severely impaired and may benefit from frequent clinical monitoring. Brexanolone does not require a dose reduction with hepatic impairment, however, should be avoided in end-stage renal disease because of the potential accumulation of the solubilizing agent.
 

Where can I find more information?

Many states have maternal mental health consultation lines (examples include NCMATTERS here in North Carolina and MCPAP for Moms in Massachusetts) for clinicians (mental health, primary care, and obstetricians) that can be utilized for questions about prescribing. Postpartum Support International also has a clinician line for those without state services.

We plan to update this entry upon market release and access to new information.

Dr. Riddle and Dr. Nathan are assistant professors in the department of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Richardson is a perinatal psychiatry fellow, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Rubinow is Distinguished Professor in the department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill. Dr. Meltzer-Brody is Assad Meymandi Distinguished Professor and Chair, department of psychiatry, UNC-Chapel Hill.

References

Deligiannidis KM et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 30;84(1):22m14475. doi: 10.4088/JCP.22m14475.

Deligiannidis KM et al. . Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023 May;141(5S):64S-65S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000930588.16136.3f.

Deligiannidis KM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 1;180(9):668-75. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

Deligiannidis KM et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 1;78(9):951-59. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559.

FDA Approves First Oral Treatment for Postpartum Depression. 2023 Aug 4. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-oral-treatment-postpartum-depression

ZURZUVAE – HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/217369s000lbl.pdf

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here in Amsterdam at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2023. Joining me for a great discussion is my friend Dr. Pam Taub, who is a cardiologist and a professor of medicine at UC San Diego. She has a particular interest in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), so that’s what we’ll be talking about today.

Thanks for joining me, Pam. When we think about POTS, for those who are not familiar with the term, what does it actually mean and how do you diagnose it?
 

No tilt table required

Pam R. Taub, MD: As you said, it’s postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. What that means is when somebody stands up, they have an elevation in their heart rate that is usually 30 points from when they’re lying down. That’s typically associated with symptoms such as lightheadedness, dizziness, and cognitive difficulties such as brain fog. The diagnosis can be made by tilt-table testing, but it can also be made in the office with simple orthostats.

In my clinic, I have people lie down for 3-5 minutes. At the end of that period, you get a heart rate and blood pressure. Then you have them stand up for 3-5 minutes and then get heart rate and blood pressure, and you look at the differences. If the heart rate goes up by 30 points – so maybe they’re 80 beats/min when they’re lying down and when they stand up, it goes to 110 beats/min  – that’s POTS, so very objective criteria. Typically, these people don’t have what we call orthostatic hypotension, where there is a significant decrease in the blood pressure. It’s more a heart rate issue.

Dr. O’Donoghue: How symptomatically do they usually present?

Dr. Taub: It’s a spectrum. Some people have mild symptoms. After they’re in the upright position for maybe 10 minutes, they get symptoms. There are some people who, when they go from a lying to standing position, they’re extremely symptomatic and can’t really do any activities. There are some people that are even wheelchair-bound because the symptoms are so debilitating. There’s a wide spectrum.

Dr. O’Donoghue: There has been more discussion, I feel like, about the rising prevalence of POTS as a diagnosis, and in particular since the COVID pandemic. What’s our understanding of the relationship between COVID and POTS and what the mechanism might be?

Dr. Taub: We’ve known that POTS can be triggered by a viral infection. Before COVID, we knew that in certain individuals that we think have an underlying genetic predisposition, usually some autoimmune substrate, when they get certain types of infections, whether it’s influenza or mononucleosis, they get POTS.

Typically, when they get an infection, they start getting deconditioned. They don’t feel well, so they’re on bed rest. When they get long periods of bed rest, when they start to become active, they start to have overactivation of their sympathetic nervous system, and they have a large amount of cardiovascular deconditioning. It’s a cycle that is often triggered after an infection.

A huge increase of POTS has been seen after COVID-19 because we had so many people exposed to this virus. With COVID-19, there is a period where people don’t feel great and they are getting bed rest, so they’re getting deconditioned. We’ve seen so many patients referred for post-COVID POTS and also long COVID or the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, where POTS is a part of that presentation.

Female sex and autoimmune conditions

Dr. O’Donoghue: We know that POTS seems to disproportionately affect women. Is that understood? Is it thought that that’s related to the perhaps the autoimmune component of that illness?

Dr. Taub: Yes. The theory is because women tend to have more autoimmune conditions, that’s why they’re more predisposed. There’s a large amount of genetic susceptibility. For instance, we know that there’s an association between POTS and conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and between POTS and mast cell activation. Some of those conditions are more prevalent in women as well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: I feel like many physicians don’t know how to manage POTS, and they’re actually a little fearful perhaps to take it on. Fortunately, there have been a growing number of POTS clinics with specialists that focus on that area. For the average practitioner who maybe can’t refer to a POTS clinic, how should they approach that?

Dr. Taub: The first thing is its diagnosis. When someone tells you that they have symptoms of orthostatic intolerance – so, activities that involve standing – you need to first have that on your differential diagnosis. You can make the diagnosis in the office with orthostats. You don’t need a tilt table. It’s sometimes helpful if you’re unsure about the diagnosis, but you can make the diagnosis.

Many times, you’re finding people that have very mild symptoms. You can treat that with some good lifestyle recommendations, such as increased hydration, increasing salt in their diet, and compression. And the exercise component is really important.

Many people with POTS are told to go exercise, go for a run, or go for a walk. That’s incorrect, because these people have symptoms when they’re in the upright position. The type of exercise they need to do initially is exercise in the lying or seated position – so exercises like rowing or a seated bike, and strength training. As they start to feel better, then they can do upright exercise.

You should never tell a person that has POTS to just initially start with upright exercise, because they’re going to feel so much worse and then they’re never going to want to exercise. It’s really important to give them the right exercise recommendations. I find that for many of these mild cases, if they do the right exercise and engage in the right lifestyle strategies, they get better.

Compression wear and drug therapy

Dr. O’Donoghue: When it comes to compression stockings, do you usually start with a particular length?

Dr. Taub: It’s interesting. There are many different compression stockings, medical grade. Through patients with POTS, I’ve gotten feedback on certain types of athletic wear that have built-in compression, and that’s a little bit easier for people to wear every day because they can do their errands and it doesn’t look like they’re wearing medical-grade compression stockings.

Basically, I’ve collected all the different recommendations that patients say help, and I give them a list. The medical-grade compression stockings sometimes are very challenging to put on, and sometimes people just need light compression or even just socks. Any kind of compression is going to help.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s a great tip, because I know there are many patients who refuse to wear the compression stockings. If there’s a fashionable alternative, that’s always good to reach for.

Dr. Taub: Another thing that patients have told me is that abdominal compression is also very helpful. There are many commercially available abdominal compression options, like shapewear. Many patients with POTS use that and that helps, too.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Good. For those patients with POTS that is refractory to the measures you’ve already discussed, what are the next steps after that?

Dr. Taub: Pharmacotherapy is very synergistic with lifestyle, and there are many different pharmacotherapy options. One of the first things that you want to think about is lowering that heart rate. The reason people feel horrible is because their heart rate is usually very high when they’re upright. If they’re upright for long periods of time and they’re having very high heart rates, they’re going to get really tired because it’s like they’re exercising for hours when they’re upright.

Heart rate lowering is the cornerstone of therapy. Traditionally, we’ve used beta-blockers for heart rate lowering. The problem is they also lower blood pressure. They can also cause fatigue, so not the ideal agent for patients with POTS.

One of the clinical trials that I led was with a drug called ivabradine, which selectively works on the SA node and decreases heart rate without affecting blood pressure. What’s really elegant about ivabradine is it has a more potent effect when the heart rate is higher. When the patient is standing, it’s going to have a more potent effect on heart rate lowering. It’s really well tolerated in patients with POTS. In our study, we showed an improvement in quality of life metrics. That’s one of the first-line drugs that I use for patients with POTS.

The other thing is some of them will also have a concomitant lowering of blood pressure. You can think about medications that increase blood pressure, like midodrine, fludrocortisone, and droxidopa. Sometimes that combination of a heart rate-lowering medication and a medication that increases blood pressure really works well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s very helpful. I think that those kinds of practical tips are the ones that practitioners really want to reach for, because they need to have that algorithm in their mind to take on this condition. Thanks again for walking us through that.

I think it’s a very interesting space, and there’s more that we’re going to be learning over the next few years as we further flesh out these post-COVID cases and what we learn from that as well.

Dr. Taub: There are many clinical trials now starting in POTS, so it’s exciting.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Absolutely. Thank you again for joining me today. Signing off, this is Dr Michelle O’Donoghue.
 

Dr. O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Dr. O’Donoghue loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. She disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, CVS Minute Clinic, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Taub is professor of Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla. She disclosed ties with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here in Amsterdam at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2023. Joining me for a great discussion is my friend Dr. Pam Taub, who is a cardiologist and a professor of medicine at UC San Diego. She has a particular interest in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), so that’s what we’ll be talking about today.

Thanks for joining me, Pam. When we think about POTS, for those who are not familiar with the term, what does it actually mean and how do you diagnose it?
 

No tilt table required

Pam R. Taub, MD: As you said, it’s postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. What that means is when somebody stands up, they have an elevation in their heart rate that is usually 30 points from when they’re lying down. That’s typically associated with symptoms such as lightheadedness, dizziness, and cognitive difficulties such as brain fog. The diagnosis can be made by tilt-table testing, but it can also be made in the office with simple orthostats.

In my clinic, I have people lie down for 3-5 minutes. At the end of that period, you get a heart rate and blood pressure. Then you have them stand up for 3-5 minutes and then get heart rate and blood pressure, and you look at the differences. If the heart rate goes up by 30 points – so maybe they’re 80 beats/min when they’re lying down and when they stand up, it goes to 110 beats/min  – that’s POTS, so very objective criteria. Typically, these people don’t have what we call orthostatic hypotension, where there is a significant decrease in the blood pressure. It’s more a heart rate issue.

Dr. O’Donoghue: How symptomatically do they usually present?

Dr. Taub: It’s a spectrum. Some people have mild symptoms. After they’re in the upright position for maybe 10 minutes, they get symptoms. There are some people who, when they go from a lying to standing position, they’re extremely symptomatic and can’t really do any activities. There are some people that are even wheelchair-bound because the symptoms are so debilitating. There’s a wide spectrum.

Dr. O’Donoghue: There has been more discussion, I feel like, about the rising prevalence of POTS as a diagnosis, and in particular since the COVID pandemic. What’s our understanding of the relationship between COVID and POTS and what the mechanism might be?

Dr. Taub: We’ve known that POTS can be triggered by a viral infection. Before COVID, we knew that in certain individuals that we think have an underlying genetic predisposition, usually some autoimmune substrate, when they get certain types of infections, whether it’s influenza or mononucleosis, they get POTS.

Typically, when they get an infection, they start getting deconditioned. They don’t feel well, so they’re on bed rest. When they get long periods of bed rest, when they start to become active, they start to have overactivation of their sympathetic nervous system, and they have a large amount of cardiovascular deconditioning. It’s a cycle that is often triggered after an infection.

A huge increase of POTS has been seen after COVID-19 because we had so many people exposed to this virus. With COVID-19, there is a period where people don’t feel great and they are getting bed rest, so they’re getting deconditioned. We’ve seen so many patients referred for post-COVID POTS and also long COVID or the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, where POTS is a part of that presentation.

Female sex and autoimmune conditions

Dr. O’Donoghue: We know that POTS seems to disproportionately affect women. Is that understood? Is it thought that that’s related to the perhaps the autoimmune component of that illness?

Dr. Taub: Yes. The theory is because women tend to have more autoimmune conditions, that’s why they’re more predisposed. There’s a large amount of genetic susceptibility. For instance, we know that there’s an association between POTS and conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and between POTS and mast cell activation. Some of those conditions are more prevalent in women as well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: I feel like many physicians don’t know how to manage POTS, and they’re actually a little fearful perhaps to take it on. Fortunately, there have been a growing number of POTS clinics with specialists that focus on that area. For the average practitioner who maybe can’t refer to a POTS clinic, how should they approach that?

Dr. Taub: The first thing is its diagnosis. When someone tells you that they have symptoms of orthostatic intolerance – so, activities that involve standing – you need to first have that on your differential diagnosis. You can make the diagnosis in the office with orthostats. You don’t need a tilt table. It’s sometimes helpful if you’re unsure about the diagnosis, but you can make the diagnosis.

Many times, you’re finding people that have very mild symptoms. You can treat that with some good lifestyle recommendations, such as increased hydration, increasing salt in their diet, and compression. And the exercise component is really important.

Many people with POTS are told to go exercise, go for a run, or go for a walk. That’s incorrect, because these people have symptoms when they’re in the upright position. The type of exercise they need to do initially is exercise in the lying or seated position – so exercises like rowing or a seated bike, and strength training. As they start to feel better, then they can do upright exercise.

You should never tell a person that has POTS to just initially start with upright exercise, because they’re going to feel so much worse and then they’re never going to want to exercise. It’s really important to give them the right exercise recommendations. I find that for many of these mild cases, if they do the right exercise and engage in the right lifestyle strategies, they get better.

Compression wear and drug therapy

Dr. O’Donoghue: When it comes to compression stockings, do you usually start with a particular length?

Dr. Taub: It’s interesting. There are many different compression stockings, medical grade. Through patients with POTS, I’ve gotten feedback on certain types of athletic wear that have built-in compression, and that’s a little bit easier for people to wear every day because they can do their errands and it doesn’t look like they’re wearing medical-grade compression stockings.

Basically, I’ve collected all the different recommendations that patients say help, and I give them a list. The medical-grade compression stockings sometimes are very challenging to put on, and sometimes people just need light compression or even just socks. Any kind of compression is going to help.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s a great tip, because I know there are many patients who refuse to wear the compression stockings. If there’s a fashionable alternative, that’s always good to reach for.

Dr. Taub: Another thing that patients have told me is that abdominal compression is also very helpful. There are many commercially available abdominal compression options, like shapewear. Many patients with POTS use that and that helps, too.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Good. For those patients with POTS that is refractory to the measures you’ve already discussed, what are the next steps after that?

Dr. Taub: Pharmacotherapy is very synergistic with lifestyle, and there are many different pharmacotherapy options. One of the first things that you want to think about is lowering that heart rate. The reason people feel horrible is because their heart rate is usually very high when they’re upright. If they’re upright for long periods of time and they’re having very high heart rates, they’re going to get really tired because it’s like they’re exercising for hours when they’re upright.

Heart rate lowering is the cornerstone of therapy. Traditionally, we’ve used beta-blockers for heart rate lowering. The problem is they also lower blood pressure. They can also cause fatigue, so not the ideal agent for patients with POTS.

One of the clinical trials that I led was with a drug called ivabradine, which selectively works on the SA node and decreases heart rate without affecting blood pressure. What’s really elegant about ivabradine is it has a more potent effect when the heart rate is higher. When the patient is standing, it’s going to have a more potent effect on heart rate lowering. It’s really well tolerated in patients with POTS. In our study, we showed an improvement in quality of life metrics. That’s one of the first-line drugs that I use for patients with POTS.

The other thing is some of them will also have a concomitant lowering of blood pressure. You can think about medications that increase blood pressure, like midodrine, fludrocortisone, and droxidopa. Sometimes that combination of a heart rate-lowering medication and a medication that increases blood pressure really works well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s very helpful. I think that those kinds of practical tips are the ones that practitioners really want to reach for, because they need to have that algorithm in their mind to take on this condition. Thanks again for walking us through that.

I think it’s a very interesting space, and there’s more that we’re going to be learning over the next few years as we further flesh out these post-COVID cases and what we learn from that as well.

Dr. Taub: There are many clinical trials now starting in POTS, so it’s exciting.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Absolutely. Thank you again for joining me today. Signing off, this is Dr Michelle O’Donoghue.
 

Dr. O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Dr. O’Donoghue loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. She disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, CVS Minute Clinic, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Taub is professor of Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla. She disclosed ties with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here in Amsterdam at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2023. Joining me for a great discussion is my friend Dr. Pam Taub, who is a cardiologist and a professor of medicine at UC San Diego. She has a particular interest in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), so that’s what we’ll be talking about today.

Thanks for joining me, Pam. When we think about POTS, for those who are not familiar with the term, what does it actually mean and how do you diagnose it?
 

No tilt table required

Pam R. Taub, MD: As you said, it’s postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. What that means is when somebody stands up, they have an elevation in their heart rate that is usually 30 points from when they’re lying down. That’s typically associated with symptoms such as lightheadedness, dizziness, and cognitive difficulties such as brain fog. The diagnosis can be made by tilt-table testing, but it can also be made in the office with simple orthostats.

In my clinic, I have people lie down for 3-5 minutes. At the end of that period, you get a heart rate and blood pressure. Then you have them stand up for 3-5 minutes and then get heart rate and blood pressure, and you look at the differences. If the heart rate goes up by 30 points – so maybe they’re 80 beats/min when they’re lying down and when they stand up, it goes to 110 beats/min  – that’s POTS, so very objective criteria. Typically, these people don’t have what we call orthostatic hypotension, where there is a significant decrease in the blood pressure. It’s more a heart rate issue.

Dr. O’Donoghue: How symptomatically do they usually present?

Dr. Taub: It’s a spectrum. Some people have mild symptoms. After they’re in the upright position for maybe 10 minutes, they get symptoms. There are some people who, when they go from a lying to standing position, they’re extremely symptomatic and can’t really do any activities. There are some people that are even wheelchair-bound because the symptoms are so debilitating. There’s a wide spectrum.

Dr. O’Donoghue: There has been more discussion, I feel like, about the rising prevalence of POTS as a diagnosis, and in particular since the COVID pandemic. What’s our understanding of the relationship between COVID and POTS and what the mechanism might be?

Dr. Taub: We’ve known that POTS can be triggered by a viral infection. Before COVID, we knew that in certain individuals that we think have an underlying genetic predisposition, usually some autoimmune substrate, when they get certain types of infections, whether it’s influenza or mononucleosis, they get POTS.

Typically, when they get an infection, they start getting deconditioned. They don’t feel well, so they’re on bed rest. When they get long periods of bed rest, when they start to become active, they start to have overactivation of their sympathetic nervous system, and they have a large amount of cardiovascular deconditioning. It’s a cycle that is often triggered after an infection.

A huge increase of POTS has been seen after COVID-19 because we had so many people exposed to this virus. With COVID-19, there is a period where people don’t feel great and they are getting bed rest, so they’re getting deconditioned. We’ve seen so many patients referred for post-COVID POTS and also long COVID or the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, where POTS is a part of that presentation.

Female sex and autoimmune conditions

Dr. O’Donoghue: We know that POTS seems to disproportionately affect women. Is that understood? Is it thought that that’s related to the perhaps the autoimmune component of that illness?

Dr. Taub: Yes. The theory is because women tend to have more autoimmune conditions, that’s why they’re more predisposed. There’s a large amount of genetic susceptibility. For instance, we know that there’s an association between POTS and conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and between POTS and mast cell activation. Some of those conditions are more prevalent in women as well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: I feel like many physicians don’t know how to manage POTS, and they’re actually a little fearful perhaps to take it on. Fortunately, there have been a growing number of POTS clinics with specialists that focus on that area. For the average practitioner who maybe can’t refer to a POTS clinic, how should they approach that?

Dr. Taub: The first thing is its diagnosis. When someone tells you that they have symptoms of orthostatic intolerance – so, activities that involve standing – you need to first have that on your differential diagnosis. You can make the diagnosis in the office with orthostats. You don’t need a tilt table. It’s sometimes helpful if you’re unsure about the diagnosis, but you can make the diagnosis.

Many times, you’re finding people that have very mild symptoms. You can treat that with some good lifestyle recommendations, such as increased hydration, increasing salt in their diet, and compression. And the exercise component is really important.

Many people with POTS are told to go exercise, go for a run, or go for a walk. That’s incorrect, because these people have symptoms when they’re in the upright position. The type of exercise they need to do initially is exercise in the lying or seated position – so exercises like rowing or a seated bike, and strength training. As they start to feel better, then they can do upright exercise.

You should never tell a person that has POTS to just initially start with upright exercise, because they’re going to feel so much worse and then they’re never going to want to exercise. It’s really important to give them the right exercise recommendations. I find that for many of these mild cases, if they do the right exercise and engage in the right lifestyle strategies, they get better.

Compression wear and drug therapy

Dr. O’Donoghue: When it comes to compression stockings, do you usually start with a particular length?

Dr. Taub: It’s interesting. There are many different compression stockings, medical grade. Through patients with POTS, I’ve gotten feedback on certain types of athletic wear that have built-in compression, and that’s a little bit easier for people to wear every day because they can do their errands and it doesn’t look like they’re wearing medical-grade compression stockings.

Basically, I’ve collected all the different recommendations that patients say help, and I give them a list. The medical-grade compression stockings sometimes are very challenging to put on, and sometimes people just need light compression or even just socks. Any kind of compression is going to help.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s a great tip, because I know there are many patients who refuse to wear the compression stockings. If there’s a fashionable alternative, that’s always good to reach for.

Dr. Taub: Another thing that patients have told me is that abdominal compression is also very helpful. There are many commercially available abdominal compression options, like shapewear. Many patients with POTS use that and that helps, too.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Good. For those patients with POTS that is refractory to the measures you’ve already discussed, what are the next steps after that?

Dr. Taub: Pharmacotherapy is very synergistic with lifestyle, and there are many different pharmacotherapy options. One of the first things that you want to think about is lowering that heart rate. The reason people feel horrible is because their heart rate is usually very high when they’re upright. If they’re upright for long periods of time and they’re having very high heart rates, they’re going to get really tired because it’s like they’re exercising for hours when they’re upright.

Heart rate lowering is the cornerstone of therapy. Traditionally, we’ve used beta-blockers for heart rate lowering. The problem is they also lower blood pressure. They can also cause fatigue, so not the ideal agent for patients with POTS.

One of the clinical trials that I led was with a drug called ivabradine, which selectively works on the SA node and decreases heart rate without affecting blood pressure. What’s really elegant about ivabradine is it has a more potent effect when the heart rate is higher. When the patient is standing, it’s going to have a more potent effect on heart rate lowering. It’s really well tolerated in patients with POTS. In our study, we showed an improvement in quality of life metrics. That’s one of the first-line drugs that I use for patients with POTS.

The other thing is some of them will also have a concomitant lowering of blood pressure. You can think about medications that increase blood pressure, like midodrine, fludrocortisone, and droxidopa. Sometimes that combination of a heart rate-lowering medication and a medication that increases blood pressure really works well.

Dr. O’Donoghue: That’s very helpful. I think that those kinds of practical tips are the ones that practitioners really want to reach for, because they need to have that algorithm in their mind to take on this condition. Thanks again for walking us through that.

I think it’s a very interesting space, and there’s more that we’re going to be learning over the next few years as we further flesh out these post-COVID cases and what we learn from that as well.

Dr. Taub: There are many clinical trials now starting in POTS, so it’s exciting.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Absolutely. Thank you again for joining me today. Signing off, this is Dr Michelle O’Donoghue.
 

Dr. O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Dr. O’Donoghue loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. She disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, CVS Minute Clinic, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Taub is professor of Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, La Jolla. She disclosed ties with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I was a resident, on morning rounds. The attending neurologist was young and ambitious (weren’t we all once?), trying to get the hospital to help him fund a research program in his subspecialty of interest.

One of the patients we saw that morning was a locally known successful businessman who’d been admitted, fortunately not for anything too serious.

Pretty standard up to that point.

After answering questions, however, the attending suddenly went into a sales pitch on his new research program, asking the guy for a financial donation, and giving him the card for the person at his office handling the funding.

I don’t remember anymore if he repeated that with other patients, but even now it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As a resident I wasn’t in a position to criticize him, nor did I want to endanger my own standing in the program by talking to someone higher up.

He was, fortunately, the only attending I ever worked with who did that. It still stands out in my mind, perhaps as an example of what not to do, and sometimes I still think about it.

Perhaps I’m naive, but I assumed he was an aberration. Apparently not, as the American College of Physicians recently issued a position paper advising its members not to ask patients for donations to the doctor’s workplace. There’s actually an acronym, GPF (Grateful Patient Fundraising) for this.

I understand a lot of these doctors are in academics and need funding for research and other programs. I know that a lot of good comes from this research, and I fully support it.

But this seems to be a bad way of doing it. Standing at the bedside on that long-ago morning, I remember thinking the patient (who looked kind of surprised) was going to wonder if this was a vague sort of hint: You’ll get better care if you pay up. Or a veiled threat that you may not get decent care if you don’t. I have no idea if he donated.

There must be a better way to get funding than hitting up a patient as part of the care plan. Perhaps discharge materials might include a brochure about how to make a donation, if interested. Or the ubiquitous portal might have a “donate” box in the task bar.

If the patient were to initiate this on his own, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. He gets out of the hospital, is grateful for his care, and calls the physician’s office to say he’d like to make a donation to whatever his program is (or just goes online to do it). That’s fine. I’ve even had the occasional patient call my office to say they’d like to make a donation to my favorite charity, and I give them a list of various neurology research foundations (none of which I’m affiliated with, for the record).

But to actively solicit donations from someone under your care is tasteless and inappropriate. It creates a conflict of interest for both parties.

The patient may believe he’ll get better care, and is obligated to keep giving – or else. The physician may feel like he’s stuck going beyond what’s really needed, ordering unnecessary tests and such to keep the financial VIP happy. And what happens if the big donor patient calls in because he hurt his ankle and needs a Percocet refill that another doctor won’t give him?

The statement by the ACP is appropriate. The only thing that bothers me about it is that it had to be made at all.

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

I was a resident, on morning rounds. The attending neurologist was young and ambitious (weren’t we all once?), trying to get the hospital to help him fund a research program in his subspecialty of interest.

One of the patients we saw that morning was a locally known successful businessman who’d been admitted, fortunately not for anything too serious.

Pretty standard up to that point.

After answering questions, however, the attending suddenly went into a sales pitch on his new research program, asking the guy for a financial donation, and giving him the card for the person at his office handling the funding.

I don’t remember anymore if he repeated that with other patients, but even now it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As a resident I wasn’t in a position to criticize him, nor did I want to endanger my own standing in the program by talking to someone higher up.

He was, fortunately, the only attending I ever worked with who did that. It still stands out in my mind, perhaps as an example of what not to do, and sometimes I still think about it.

Perhaps I’m naive, but I assumed he was an aberration. Apparently not, as the American College of Physicians recently issued a position paper advising its members not to ask patients for donations to the doctor’s workplace. There’s actually an acronym, GPF (Grateful Patient Fundraising) for this.

I understand a lot of these doctors are in academics and need funding for research and other programs. I know that a lot of good comes from this research, and I fully support it.

But this seems to be a bad way of doing it. Standing at the bedside on that long-ago morning, I remember thinking the patient (who looked kind of surprised) was going to wonder if this was a vague sort of hint: You’ll get better care if you pay up. Or a veiled threat that you may not get decent care if you don’t. I have no idea if he donated.

There must be a better way to get funding than hitting up a patient as part of the care plan. Perhaps discharge materials might include a brochure about how to make a donation, if interested. Or the ubiquitous portal might have a “donate” box in the task bar.

If the patient were to initiate this on his own, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. He gets out of the hospital, is grateful for his care, and calls the physician’s office to say he’d like to make a donation to whatever his program is (or just goes online to do it). That’s fine. I’ve even had the occasional patient call my office to say they’d like to make a donation to my favorite charity, and I give them a list of various neurology research foundations (none of which I’m affiliated with, for the record).

But to actively solicit donations from someone under your care is tasteless and inappropriate. It creates a conflict of interest for both parties.

The patient may believe he’ll get better care, and is obligated to keep giving – or else. The physician may feel like he’s stuck going beyond what’s really needed, ordering unnecessary tests and such to keep the financial VIP happy. And what happens if the big donor patient calls in because he hurt his ankle and needs a Percocet refill that another doctor won’t give him?

The statement by the ACP is appropriate. The only thing that bothers me about it is that it had to be made at all.

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

I was a resident, on morning rounds. The attending neurologist was young and ambitious (weren’t we all once?), trying to get the hospital to help him fund a research program in his subspecialty of interest.

One of the patients we saw that morning was a locally known successful businessman who’d been admitted, fortunately not for anything too serious.

Pretty standard up to that point.

After answering questions, however, the attending suddenly went into a sales pitch on his new research program, asking the guy for a financial donation, and giving him the card for the person at his office handling the funding.

I don’t remember anymore if he repeated that with other patients, but even now it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As a resident I wasn’t in a position to criticize him, nor did I want to endanger my own standing in the program by talking to someone higher up.

He was, fortunately, the only attending I ever worked with who did that. It still stands out in my mind, perhaps as an example of what not to do, and sometimes I still think about it.

Perhaps I’m naive, but I assumed he was an aberration. Apparently not, as the American College of Physicians recently issued a position paper advising its members not to ask patients for donations to the doctor’s workplace. There’s actually an acronym, GPF (Grateful Patient Fundraising) for this.

I understand a lot of these doctors are in academics and need funding for research and other programs. I know that a lot of good comes from this research, and I fully support it.

But this seems to be a bad way of doing it. Standing at the bedside on that long-ago morning, I remember thinking the patient (who looked kind of surprised) was going to wonder if this was a vague sort of hint: You’ll get better care if you pay up. Or a veiled threat that you may not get decent care if you don’t. I have no idea if he donated.

There must be a better way to get funding than hitting up a patient as part of the care plan. Perhaps discharge materials might include a brochure about how to make a donation, if interested. Or the ubiquitous portal might have a “donate” box in the task bar.

If the patient were to initiate this on his own, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. He gets out of the hospital, is grateful for his care, and calls the physician’s office to say he’d like to make a donation to whatever his program is (or just goes online to do it). That’s fine. I’ve even had the occasional patient call my office to say they’d like to make a donation to my favorite charity, and I give them a list of various neurology research foundations (none of which I’m affiliated with, for the record).

But to actively solicit donations from someone under your care is tasteless and inappropriate. It creates a conflict of interest for both parties.

The patient may believe he’ll get better care, and is obligated to keep giving – or else. The physician may feel like he’s stuck going beyond what’s really needed, ordering unnecessary tests and such to keep the financial VIP happy. And what happens if the big donor patient calls in because he hurt his ankle and needs a Percocet refill that another doctor won’t give him?

The statement by the ACP is appropriate. The only thing that bothers me about it is that it had to be made at all.

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