User login
Go outside: It’s good for you
“Go outside and play!”
How many times did your mother tell you that?
Turns out that, like with chicken soup, she was right.
A recent article in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that urban dwellers who spent time outdoors in green areas, such as parks and forests, had lower use of antihypertensive, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications than those who didn’t. People who just looked at such areas from a window didn’t have lower medication use than those who weren’t exposed to them at all.
In other words:
1. Being outside in nature is good for you.
2. Staring at a forest on your screensaver isn’t a substitute.
But this shouldn’t really surprise anyone.
While I’m not going to say our technologically driven lifestyles are a bad thing - they’ve certainly made many parts of our lives easier – they do tend to take us away from other activities. As I’ve mentioned in this column before, there’s no shortage of recent studies suggesting social media use and regularly following the news are bad for you. These are things that become emotionally taxing and upsetting, increasing anxiety, raising blood pressure, and increasing stress eating and other not-so-good-for-you consequences.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Getting outside takes time, something it seems we have precious little of these days. Our lives are constantly in a rush from the house to the office to the hospital to the store to the house. Wash, rinse, repeat. Breaking the cycle is harder than just going along with it.
Yet, as these things show, . While I still enjoy my job, I’m obviously not the only one who needs to step back and go to the park, or hiking trail, or whatever.
Studies agree that it’s a good idea. And my mom told me to.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“Go outside and play!”
How many times did your mother tell you that?
Turns out that, like with chicken soup, she was right.
A recent article in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that urban dwellers who spent time outdoors in green areas, such as parks and forests, had lower use of antihypertensive, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications than those who didn’t. People who just looked at such areas from a window didn’t have lower medication use than those who weren’t exposed to them at all.
In other words:
1. Being outside in nature is good for you.
2. Staring at a forest on your screensaver isn’t a substitute.
But this shouldn’t really surprise anyone.
While I’m not going to say our technologically driven lifestyles are a bad thing - they’ve certainly made many parts of our lives easier – they do tend to take us away from other activities. As I’ve mentioned in this column before, there’s no shortage of recent studies suggesting social media use and regularly following the news are bad for you. These are things that become emotionally taxing and upsetting, increasing anxiety, raising blood pressure, and increasing stress eating and other not-so-good-for-you consequences.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Getting outside takes time, something it seems we have precious little of these days. Our lives are constantly in a rush from the house to the office to the hospital to the store to the house. Wash, rinse, repeat. Breaking the cycle is harder than just going along with it.
Yet, as these things show, . While I still enjoy my job, I’m obviously not the only one who needs to step back and go to the park, or hiking trail, or whatever.
Studies agree that it’s a good idea. And my mom told me to.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“Go outside and play!”
How many times did your mother tell you that?
Turns out that, like with chicken soup, she was right.
A recent article in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that urban dwellers who spent time outdoors in green areas, such as parks and forests, had lower use of antihypertensive, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications than those who didn’t. People who just looked at such areas from a window didn’t have lower medication use than those who weren’t exposed to them at all.
In other words:
1. Being outside in nature is good for you.
2. Staring at a forest on your screensaver isn’t a substitute.
But this shouldn’t really surprise anyone.
While I’m not going to say our technologically driven lifestyles are a bad thing - they’ve certainly made many parts of our lives easier – they do tend to take us away from other activities. As I’ve mentioned in this column before, there’s no shortage of recent studies suggesting social media use and regularly following the news are bad for you. These are things that become emotionally taxing and upsetting, increasing anxiety, raising blood pressure, and increasing stress eating and other not-so-good-for-you consequences.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Getting outside takes time, something it seems we have precious little of these days. Our lives are constantly in a rush from the house to the office to the hospital to the store to the house. Wash, rinse, repeat. Breaking the cycle is harder than just going along with it.
Yet, as these things show, . While I still enjoy my job, I’m obviously not the only one who needs to step back and go to the park, or hiking trail, or whatever.
Studies agree that it’s a good idea. And my mom told me to.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Advice on antibiotics for kids during shortages
Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.
After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.
These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.
Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.
Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.
However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.
The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.
Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.
This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.
Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.
After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.
These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.
Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.
Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.
However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.
The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.
Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.
This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.
Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.
After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.
These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.
Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.
Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.
However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.
The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.
Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.
This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.
Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Commenting on weight’s not rude. It’s dangerous.
It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.
At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.
In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.
The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.
Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.
My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.
Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.
In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.
Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
Common weight bias assumptions
“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.
Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.
“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.
It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
Ways to reduce clinical weight bias
How do you reduce clinical weight bias?
Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.
Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.
Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.
Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.
Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.
Systemically, health care needs to address the following:
Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”
Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.
Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.
We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”
S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.
Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.
At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.
In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.
The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.
Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.
My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.
Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.
In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.
Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
Common weight bias assumptions
“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.
Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.
“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.
It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
Ways to reduce clinical weight bias
How do you reduce clinical weight bias?
Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.
Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.
Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.
Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.
Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.
Systemically, health care needs to address the following:
Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”
Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.
Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.
We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”
S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.
Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.
At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.
In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.
The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.
Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.
My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.
Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.
In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.
Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
Common weight bias assumptions
“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.
Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.
“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.
It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
Ways to reduce clinical weight bias
How do you reduce clinical weight bias?
Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.
Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.
Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.
Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.
Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.
Systemically, health care needs to address the following:
Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”
Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.
Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.
We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”
S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.
Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The challenge of incidentally detected interstitial lung abnormalities
Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.
ILAs are common. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.
Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.
This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.
The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.
One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.
In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.
ILAs are common. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.
Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.
This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.
The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.
One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.
In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.
ILAs are common. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.
Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.
This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.
The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.
One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.
In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New developments and barriers to palliative care
As we enter into this new year, it is a good time to review the past few years of living through a pandemic and the impact this has had on the field of palliative care.
According to the World Health Organization, “Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families who are facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, by the prevention and relief of suffering through early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other problems whether physical, psychosocial and spiritual.”1 They identify a global need and recognize palliative care as a “human right to health and as a standard of care particularly for individuals living with a serious illness.1 However, the WHO goes further to recognize palliative care as an essential part of the response team during crises and health emergencies like a pandemic, noting that a response team without palliative care is “medically deficient and ethically indefensible.”2
The need for palliative care in the United States is projected to grow significantly in the next decades.3 However, there has been insufficient staffing to meet these needs, even prior to the pandemic.4 The demand for palliative care reached further unprecedented levels during the pandemic as palliative care teams played an integral role and were well situated to support not only patients and families with COVID-19,5 but to also support the well-being of health care teams caring for COVID-19 patients.6,7
A recent survey that was conducted by the Center to Advance Palliative Care among palliative care leadership captured the experiences of leading their teams through a pandemic. Below are the results of this survey, which highlighted important issues and developments to palliative care during the pandemic.6
Increasing need for palliative care
One of the main findings from the national survey of palliative care leaders corroborated that the demands for palliative care have increased significantly from 2020 through the pandemic.
As with many areas in the health care system, the pandemic has emphasized the strain and short staffing of the palliative care teams. In the survey, 61% of leaders reported that palliative care consults significantly increased from prepandemic levels. But only 26% of these leaders said they had the staffing support to meet these needs.
Value of palliative care
The value of palliative care along with understanding of the role of palliative care has been better recognized during the pandemic and has been evidenced by the increase in palliative care referrals from clinical providers, compared with prepandemic levels. In addition, data collected showed that earlier palliative care consultations reduced length of hospital stay, decreased ICU admissions, and improved patient, family, and provider satisfaction.
Well-being of the workforce
The pandemic has been a tremendously stressful time for the health care workforce that has undoubtedly led to burnout. A nationwide study of physicians,8 found that 61% of physicians experienced burnout. This is a significant increase from prepandemic levels with impacts on mental health (that is, anxiety, depression). This study did not include palliative care specialists, but the CAPC survey indicates a similar feeling of burnout. Because of this, some palliative care specialists have left the field altogether, or are leaving leadership positions because of burnout and exhaustion from the pandemic. This was featured as a concern among palliative care leaders, where 93% reported concern for the emotional well-being of the palliative care team.
Telehealth
A permanent operational change that has been well-utilized and implemented across multiple health care settings has been providing palliative care through telehealth. Prior to the pandemic, the baseline use of telehealth was less than 5% with the use now greater than 75% – a modality that is favored by both patients and clinicians. This has offered a broader scope of practice, reaching individuals who may have no other means, have limitations to accessing palliative care, or were in circumstances where patients required isolation during the pandemic. However, there are limitations to this platform, including in equity of access to devices and ease of use for those with limited exposure to technology.9
Barriers to implementation
Although the important role and value of palliative care has been well recognized, there have been barriers identified in a qualitative study of the integration of palliative care into COVID-19 action plans that are mentioned below.5
- Patients and families were identified as barriers to integration of palliative care if they were not open to palliative care referral, mainly because of misperceptions of palliative care as end-of-life care.
- Palliative care knowledge among providers was identified as another barrier to integration of palliative care. There are still misperceptions among providers that palliative care is end-of-life care and palliative care involvement is stigmatized as hastening death. In addition, some felt that COVID-19 was not a traditional “palliative diagnosis” thus were less likely to integrate palliative care into care plans.
- Lack of availability of a primary provider to conduct primary palliative care and lack of motivation “not to give up” were identified as other barriers. On the other hand, palliative care provider availability and accessibility to care teams affected the integration into COVID-19 care plans.
- COVID-19 itself was identified to be a barrier because of the uncertainty of illness trajectory and outcomes, which made it difficult for doctors to ascertain when to involve palliative care.
- Leadership and institution were important factors to consider in integration of palliative care into long-term care plans, which depended on leadership engagement and institutional culture.
Takeaways
The past few years have taught us a lot, but there is still much to learn. The COVID-19 pandemic has called attention to the challenges and barriers of health care delivery and has magnified the needs of the health care system including its infrastructure, preparedness, and staffing, including the field of palliative care. More work needs to be done, but leaders have taken steps to initiate national and international preparedness plans including the integration of palliative care, which has been identified as a vital role in any humanitarian crises.10,11
Dr. Kang is a geriatrician and palliative care provider at the University of Washington, Seattle, in the division of geriatrics and gerontology. She has no conflicts related to the content of this article.
References
1. Palliative care. World Health Organization. Aug 5, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care
2. World Health Organization. Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises: A WHO guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274565.
3. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annual Review Public Health. 2014;35:459-75.
4. Pastrana T et al. The impact of COVID-19 on palliative care workers across the world: A qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2021:1-6.
5. Wentlandt K et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2022;36(6):945-54.
6. Rogers M et al. Palliative care leadership during the pandemic: Results from a recent survey. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2022 Sept 8. https://www.capc.org/blog/palliative-care-leadership-during-the-pandemic-results-from-a-recent-survey
7. Fogelman P. Reflections form a palliative care program leader two years into the pandemic. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2023 Jan 15. https://www.capc.org/blog/reflections-from-a-palliative-care-program-leader-two-years-into-the-pandemic
8. 2021 survey of America’s physicians Covid-19 impact edition: A year later. The Physicians Foundation. 2021.
9. Caraceni A et al. Telemedicine for outpatient palliative care during Covid-19 pandemics: A longitudinal study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2022;0:1-7.
10. Bausewein C et al. National strategy for palliative care of severely ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics (PallPan) in Germany – study protocol of a mixed-methods project. BMC Palliative Care. 2022;21(10).
11. Powell RA et al. Palliative care in humanitarian crises: Always something to offer. The Lancet. 2017;389(10078):1498-9.
As we enter into this new year, it is a good time to review the past few years of living through a pandemic and the impact this has had on the field of palliative care.
According to the World Health Organization, “Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families who are facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, by the prevention and relief of suffering through early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other problems whether physical, psychosocial and spiritual.”1 They identify a global need and recognize palliative care as a “human right to health and as a standard of care particularly for individuals living with a serious illness.1 However, the WHO goes further to recognize palliative care as an essential part of the response team during crises and health emergencies like a pandemic, noting that a response team without palliative care is “medically deficient and ethically indefensible.”2
The need for palliative care in the United States is projected to grow significantly in the next decades.3 However, there has been insufficient staffing to meet these needs, even prior to the pandemic.4 The demand for palliative care reached further unprecedented levels during the pandemic as palliative care teams played an integral role and were well situated to support not only patients and families with COVID-19,5 but to also support the well-being of health care teams caring for COVID-19 patients.6,7
A recent survey that was conducted by the Center to Advance Palliative Care among palliative care leadership captured the experiences of leading their teams through a pandemic. Below are the results of this survey, which highlighted important issues and developments to palliative care during the pandemic.6
Increasing need for palliative care
One of the main findings from the national survey of palliative care leaders corroborated that the demands for palliative care have increased significantly from 2020 through the pandemic.
As with many areas in the health care system, the pandemic has emphasized the strain and short staffing of the palliative care teams. In the survey, 61% of leaders reported that palliative care consults significantly increased from prepandemic levels. But only 26% of these leaders said they had the staffing support to meet these needs.
Value of palliative care
The value of palliative care along with understanding of the role of palliative care has been better recognized during the pandemic and has been evidenced by the increase in palliative care referrals from clinical providers, compared with prepandemic levels. In addition, data collected showed that earlier palliative care consultations reduced length of hospital stay, decreased ICU admissions, and improved patient, family, and provider satisfaction.
Well-being of the workforce
The pandemic has been a tremendously stressful time for the health care workforce that has undoubtedly led to burnout. A nationwide study of physicians,8 found that 61% of physicians experienced burnout. This is a significant increase from prepandemic levels with impacts on mental health (that is, anxiety, depression). This study did not include palliative care specialists, but the CAPC survey indicates a similar feeling of burnout. Because of this, some palliative care specialists have left the field altogether, or are leaving leadership positions because of burnout and exhaustion from the pandemic. This was featured as a concern among palliative care leaders, where 93% reported concern for the emotional well-being of the palliative care team.
Telehealth
A permanent operational change that has been well-utilized and implemented across multiple health care settings has been providing palliative care through telehealth. Prior to the pandemic, the baseline use of telehealth was less than 5% with the use now greater than 75% – a modality that is favored by both patients and clinicians. This has offered a broader scope of practice, reaching individuals who may have no other means, have limitations to accessing palliative care, or were in circumstances where patients required isolation during the pandemic. However, there are limitations to this platform, including in equity of access to devices and ease of use for those with limited exposure to technology.9
Barriers to implementation
Although the important role and value of palliative care has been well recognized, there have been barriers identified in a qualitative study of the integration of palliative care into COVID-19 action plans that are mentioned below.5
- Patients and families were identified as barriers to integration of palliative care if they were not open to palliative care referral, mainly because of misperceptions of palliative care as end-of-life care.
- Palliative care knowledge among providers was identified as another barrier to integration of palliative care. There are still misperceptions among providers that palliative care is end-of-life care and palliative care involvement is stigmatized as hastening death. In addition, some felt that COVID-19 was not a traditional “palliative diagnosis” thus were less likely to integrate palliative care into care plans.
- Lack of availability of a primary provider to conduct primary palliative care and lack of motivation “not to give up” were identified as other barriers. On the other hand, palliative care provider availability and accessibility to care teams affected the integration into COVID-19 care plans.
- COVID-19 itself was identified to be a barrier because of the uncertainty of illness trajectory and outcomes, which made it difficult for doctors to ascertain when to involve palliative care.
- Leadership and institution were important factors to consider in integration of palliative care into long-term care plans, which depended on leadership engagement and institutional culture.
Takeaways
The past few years have taught us a lot, but there is still much to learn. The COVID-19 pandemic has called attention to the challenges and barriers of health care delivery and has magnified the needs of the health care system including its infrastructure, preparedness, and staffing, including the field of palliative care. More work needs to be done, but leaders have taken steps to initiate national and international preparedness plans including the integration of palliative care, which has been identified as a vital role in any humanitarian crises.10,11
Dr. Kang is a geriatrician and palliative care provider at the University of Washington, Seattle, in the division of geriatrics and gerontology. She has no conflicts related to the content of this article.
References
1. Palliative care. World Health Organization. Aug 5, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care
2. World Health Organization. Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises: A WHO guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274565.
3. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annual Review Public Health. 2014;35:459-75.
4. Pastrana T et al. The impact of COVID-19 on palliative care workers across the world: A qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2021:1-6.
5. Wentlandt K et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2022;36(6):945-54.
6. Rogers M et al. Palliative care leadership during the pandemic: Results from a recent survey. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2022 Sept 8. https://www.capc.org/blog/palliative-care-leadership-during-the-pandemic-results-from-a-recent-survey
7. Fogelman P. Reflections form a palliative care program leader two years into the pandemic. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2023 Jan 15. https://www.capc.org/blog/reflections-from-a-palliative-care-program-leader-two-years-into-the-pandemic
8. 2021 survey of America’s physicians Covid-19 impact edition: A year later. The Physicians Foundation. 2021.
9. Caraceni A et al. Telemedicine for outpatient palliative care during Covid-19 pandemics: A longitudinal study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2022;0:1-7.
10. Bausewein C et al. National strategy for palliative care of severely ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics (PallPan) in Germany – study protocol of a mixed-methods project. BMC Palliative Care. 2022;21(10).
11. Powell RA et al. Palliative care in humanitarian crises: Always something to offer. The Lancet. 2017;389(10078):1498-9.
As we enter into this new year, it is a good time to review the past few years of living through a pandemic and the impact this has had on the field of palliative care.
According to the World Health Organization, “Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families who are facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, by the prevention and relief of suffering through early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other problems whether physical, psychosocial and spiritual.”1 They identify a global need and recognize palliative care as a “human right to health and as a standard of care particularly for individuals living with a serious illness.1 However, the WHO goes further to recognize palliative care as an essential part of the response team during crises and health emergencies like a pandemic, noting that a response team without palliative care is “medically deficient and ethically indefensible.”2
The need for palliative care in the United States is projected to grow significantly in the next decades.3 However, there has been insufficient staffing to meet these needs, even prior to the pandemic.4 The demand for palliative care reached further unprecedented levels during the pandemic as palliative care teams played an integral role and were well situated to support not only patients and families with COVID-19,5 but to also support the well-being of health care teams caring for COVID-19 patients.6,7
A recent survey that was conducted by the Center to Advance Palliative Care among palliative care leadership captured the experiences of leading their teams through a pandemic. Below are the results of this survey, which highlighted important issues and developments to palliative care during the pandemic.6
Increasing need for palliative care
One of the main findings from the national survey of palliative care leaders corroborated that the demands for palliative care have increased significantly from 2020 through the pandemic.
As with many areas in the health care system, the pandemic has emphasized the strain and short staffing of the palliative care teams. In the survey, 61% of leaders reported that palliative care consults significantly increased from prepandemic levels. But only 26% of these leaders said they had the staffing support to meet these needs.
Value of palliative care
The value of palliative care along with understanding of the role of palliative care has been better recognized during the pandemic and has been evidenced by the increase in palliative care referrals from clinical providers, compared with prepandemic levels. In addition, data collected showed that earlier palliative care consultations reduced length of hospital stay, decreased ICU admissions, and improved patient, family, and provider satisfaction.
Well-being of the workforce
The pandemic has been a tremendously stressful time for the health care workforce that has undoubtedly led to burnout. A nationwide study of physicians,8 found that 61% of physicians experienced burnout. This is a significant increase from prepandemic levels with impacts on mental health (that is, anxiety, depression). This study did not include palliative care specialists, but the CAPC survey indicates a similar feeling of burnout. Because of this, some palliative care specialists have left the field altogether, or are leaving leadership positions because of burnout and exhaustion from the pandemic. This was featured as a concern among palliative care leaders, where 93% reported concern for the emotional well-being of the palliative care team.
Telehealth
A permanent operational change that has been well-utilized and implemented across multiple health care settings has been providing palliative care through telehealth. Prior to the pandemic, the baseline use of telehealth was less than 5% with the use now greater than 75% – a modality that is favored by both patients and clinicians. This has offered a broader scope of practice, reaching individuals who may have no other means, have limitations to accessing palliative care, or were in circumstances where patients required isolation during the pandemic. However, there are limitations to this platform, including in equity of access to devices and ease of use for those with limited exposure to technology.9
Barriers to implementation
Although the important role and value of palliative care has been well recognized, there have been barriers identified in a qualitative study of the integration of palliative care into COVID-19 action plans that are mentioned below.5
- Patients and families were identified as barriers to integration of palliative care if they were not open to palliative care referral, mainly because of misperceptions of palliative care as end-of-life care.
- Palliative care knowledge among providers was identified as another barrier to integration of palliative care. There are still misperceptions among providers that palliative care is end-of-life care and palliative care involvement is stigmatized as hastening death. In addition, some felt that COVID-19 was not a traditional “palliative diagnosis” thus were less likely to integrate palliative care into care plans.
- Lack of availability of a primary provider to conduct primary palliative care and lack of motivation “not to give up” were identified as other barriers. On the other hand, palliative care provider availability and accessibility to care teams affected the integration into COVID-19 care plans.
- COVID-19 itself was identified to be a barrier because of the uncertainty of illness trajectory and outcomes, which made it difficult for doctors to ascertain when to involve palliative care.
- Leadership and institution were important factors to consider in integration of palliative care into long-term care plans, which depended on leadership engagement and institutional culture.
Takeaways
The past few years have taught us a lot, but there is still much to learn. The COVID-19 pandemic has called attention to the challenges and barriers of health care delivery and has magnified the needs of the health care system including its infrastructure, preparedness, and staffing, including the field of palliative care. More work needs to be done, but leaders have taken steps to initiate national and international preparedness plans including the integration of palliative care, which has been identified as a vital role in any humanitarian crises.10,11
Dr. Kang is a geriatrician and palliative care provider at the University of Washington, Seattle, in the division of geriatrics and gerontology. She has no conflicts related to the content of this article.
References
1. Palliative care. World Health Organization. Aug 5, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care
2. World Health Organization. Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises: A WHO guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274565.
3. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annual Review Public Health. 2014;35:459-75.
4. Pastrana T et al. The impact of COVID-19 on palliative care workers across the world: A qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2021:1-6.
5. Wentlandt K et al. Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2022;36(6):945-54.
6. Rogers M et al. Palliative care leadership during the pandemic: Results from a recent survey. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2022 Sept 8. https://www.capc.org/blog/palliative-care-leadership-during-the-pandemic-results-from-a-recent-survey
7. Fogelman P. Reflections form a palliative care program leader two years into the pandemic. Center to Advance Palliative Care. 2023 Jan 15. https://www.capc.org/blog/reflections-from-a-palliative-care-program-leader-two-years-into-the-pandemic
8. 2021 survey of America’s physicians Covid-19 impact edition: A year later. The Physicians Foundation. 2021.
9. Caraceni A et al. Telemedicine for outpatient palliative care during Covid-19 pandemics: A longitudinal study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2022;0:1-7.
10. Bausewein C et al. National strategy for palliative care of severely ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics (PallPan) in Germany – study protocol of a mixed-methods project. BMC Palliative Care. 2022;21(10).
11. Powell RA et al. Palliative care in humanitarian crises: Always something to offer. The Lancet. 2017;389(10078):1498-9.
The new blood pressure target in primary care
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.
Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.
Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.
The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.
The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.
Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.
The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.
So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.
AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.
The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.
In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.
Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.
Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.
Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.
Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.
The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.
The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.
Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.
The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.
So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.
AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.
The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.
In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.
Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.
Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.
Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.
Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.
The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.
The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.
Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.
The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.
So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.
AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.
The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.
In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.
Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.
Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.
Perceived barriers to accessing psychiatric electroceutical interventions for depression
Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) – including Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as experimental interventions such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive brain implants (ABI) – offer therapeutic promise for patients suffering with major depressive disorder (MDD). Yet there remain many open questions regarding their use, even in cases where their safety and effectiveness is well established.
Our research aims to better understand how different stakeholder groups view these interventions. We conducted a series of interviews with psychiatrists, patients with MDD, and members of the public to more fully comprehend these groups’ perceptions of barriers to using these therapies.1 They raised concerns about limitations to access posed by the limited geographic availability of these treatments, their cost, and lack of insurance coverage. In addition, each stakeholder group cited lack of knowledge about PEIs as a perceived barrier to their wider implementation in depression care.
Our participants recognized there are significant geographic limitations to accessing PEIs, as many of these treatments are available only in large, well-resourced cities. This is especially true for DBS and ABIs as they remain investigational, require neurosurgery, and currently are offered only during clinical research trials. However, even for established therapies like ECT and rTMS, access often remains limited to larger treatment centers. Further, training on the proper implementation and use of these modalities is limited in the United States. Current requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education state only that psychiatry residents demonstrate knowledge of these therapies and their indications, falling short of requiring first-hand experience in referring or administering them.2
Our participants also perceived the cost of these therapies as a significant barrier affecting a large proportion of patients who could potentially benefit from them. Another frequently mentioned barrier is the lack of insurance coverage for existing PEIs, particularly rTMS. Even when insurance covers treatment with an approved PEI (for example, ECT, rTMS), there may be a requirement to have tried and failed multiple antidepressant medications first. These insurance requirements may contribute to a lack of general clarity about when these treatments should be used. The psychiatrists we interviewed, for example, were almost evenly split between believing that ECT and/or rTMS should be offered earlier in the course of therapy and believing that they should be reserved only for patients with treatment-resistant depression.
Further, some psychiatrists we interviewed stated that they wanted more information about the appropriate use of these treatments. This is unsurprising, as the available guidelines for the approved electroceutical treatments are outdated. Although the American Psychiatric Association Task Force is due to publish updated guidelines for ECT, it has been more than 20 years since the current guidelines were published.3 More recent guidelines, such as those issued in 2016 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments cite studies that were even then several years old.4 For rTMS, newer guidelines are available, but they have not yet been revised to include recent developments such as the SAINT protocol.5,6
While useful, clinical guidelines do not provide all of the information psychiatrists require for clinical decision-making. They are only as good as the evidence available and to the extent that they include all of the considerations important to psychiatrists and the specific patients they are treating.7,8 We asked the psychiatrists in our interviews what practical information they would like to see included in treatment guidelines. They offered a range of suggestions: better guidance about which patients would be most likely to benefit, when to offer the treatments, and how to combine these therapies with other interventions.
For the experimental PEIs (DBS and ABIs), similar questions and concerns arise. In the current research context, psychiatrists may not be aware of which patients are good candidates for referral to clinical trials. If these therapies are approved, similar questions about patient selection and place in treatment (for example, first line, second line, etc.) remain.9
Finally, each of our participant groups believed that patients and the public lack adequate knowledge about electroceutical interventions, and they emphasized the importance of giving potential patients sufficient information to enable them to provide valid informed consent. This is important in the case of the approved electroceutical therapies (ECT and rTMS), in part because of the potential for decision-making to be influenced unduly by misinformation and controversy – especially given that the media’s depiction of these interventions might influence patients’ willingness to receive helpful therapies such as ECT.10
Our interviews were used to inform the development of a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, which will provide further information about perceived barriers to accessing PEIs.
Dr. Bluhm is associate professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Achtyes is director of the division of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids. Dr. McCright is chair of the department of sociology at Michigan State University. Dr. Cabrera is Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Neuroethics at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park.
References
1. Cabrera LY et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612.
2. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Psychiatry – Program Requirements and FAQs. https://www.acgme.org/specialties/psychiatry/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/
3. American Psychiatric Association. The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy, Second Edition: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging. 2001.
4. Miley RV et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;61(9):561-75. doi: 10.1177/0706743716660033.
5. Perera T et al. Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):336-46. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.03.010.
6. Cole EJ et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 1;177(8):716-26. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19070720.
7. Gabriel FC et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 21;15(4):e0231700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231700.
8. Woolf SH et al. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527.
9. Widge AS et al. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 15;79(4):e9-10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.005.
10. Sienaert P. Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov-Dec;9(6):882-91. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.07.005.
Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) – including Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as experimental interventions such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive brain implants (ABI) – offer therapeutic promise for patients suffering with major depressive disorder (MDD). Yet there remain many open questions regarding their use, even in cases where their safety and effectiveness is well established.
Our research aims to better understand how different stakeholder groups view these interventions. We conducted a series of interviews with psychiatrists, patients with MDD, and members of the public to more fully comprehend these groups’ perceptions of barriers to using these therapies.1 They raised concerns about limitations to access posed by the limited geographic availability of these treatments, their cost, and lack of insurance coverage. In addition, each stakeholder group cited lack of knowledge about PEIs as a perceived barrier to their wider implementation in depression care.
Our participants recognized there are significant geographic limitations to accessing PEIs, as many of these treatments are available only in large, well-resourced cities. This is especially true for DBS and ABIs as they remain investigational, require neurosurgery, and currently are offered only during clinical research trials. However, even for established therapies like ECT and rTMS, access often remains limited to larger treatment centers. Further, training on the proper implementation and use of these modalities is limited in the United States. Current requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education state only that psychiatry residents demonstrate knowledge of these therapies and their indications, falling short of requiring first-hand experience in referring or administering them.2
Our participants also perceived the cost of these therapies as a significant barrier affecting a large proportion of patients who could potentially benefit from them. Another frequently mentioned barrier is the lack of insurance coverage for existing PEIs, particularly rTMS. Even when insurance covers treatment with an approved PEI (for example, ECT, rTMS), there may be a requirement to have tried and failed multiple antidepressant medications first. These insurance requirements may contribute to a lack of general clarity about when these treatments should be used. The psychiatrists we interviewed, for example, were almost evenly split between believing that ECT and/or rTMS should be offered earlier in the course of therapy and believing that they should be reserved only for patients with treatment-resistant depression.
Further, some psychiatrists we interviewed stated that they wanted more information about the appropriate use of these treatments. This is unsurprising, as the available guidelines for the approved electroceutical treatments are outdated. Although the American Psychiatric Association Task Force is due to publish updated guidelines for ECT, it has been more than 20 years since the current guidelines were published.3 More recent guidelines, such as those issued in 2016 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments cite studies that were even then several years old.4 For rTMS, newer guidelines are available, but they have not yet been revised to include recent developments such as the SAINT protocol.5,6
While useful, clinical guidelines do not provide all of the information psychiatrists require for clinical decision-making. They are only as good as the evidence available and to the extent that they include all of the considerations important to psychiatrists and the specific patients they are treating.7,8 We asked the psychiatrists in our interviews what practical information they would like to see included in treatment guidelines. They offered a range of suggestions: better guidance about which patients would be most likely to benefit, when to offer the treatments, and how to combine these therapies with other interventions.
For the experimental PEIs (DBS and ABIs), similar questions and concerns arise. In the current research context, psychiatrists may not be aware of which patients are good candidates for referral to clinical trials. If these therapies are approved, similar questions about patient selection and place in treatment (for example, first line, second line, etc.) remain.9
Finally, each of our participant groups believed that patients and the public lack adequate knowledge about electroceutical interventions, and they emphasized the importance of giving potential patients sufficient information to enable them to provide valid informed consent. This is important in the case of the approved electroceutical therapies (ECT and rTMS), in part because of the potential for decision-making to be influenced unduly by misinformation and controversy – especially given that the media’s depiction of these interventions might influence patients’ willingness to receive helpful therapies such as ECT.10
Our interviews were used to inform the development of a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, which will provide further information about perceived barriers to accessing PEIs.
Dr. Bluhm is associate professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Achtyes is director of the division of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids. Dr. McCright is chair of the department of sociology at Michigan State University. Dr. Cabrera is Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Neuroethics at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park.
References
1. Cabrera LY et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612.
2. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Psychiatry – Program Requirements and FAQs. https://www.acgme.org/specialties/psychiatry/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/
3. American Psychiatric Association. The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy, Second Edition: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging. 2001.
4. Miley RV et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;61(9):561-75. doi: 10.1177/0706743716660033.
5. Perera T et al. Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):336-46. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.03.010.
6. Cole EJ et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 1;177(8):716-26. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19070720.
7. Gabriel FC et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 21;15(4):e0231700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231700.
8. Woolf SH et al. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527.
9. Widge AS et al. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 15;79(4):e9-10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.005.
10. Sienaert P. Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov-Dec;9(6):882-91. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.07.005.
Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) – including Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as experimental interventions such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive brain implants (ABI) – offer therapeutic promise for patients suffering with major depressive disorder (MDD). Yet there remain many open questions regarding their use, even in cases where their safety and effectiveness is well established.
Our research aims to better understand how different stakeholder groups view these interventions. We conducted a series of interviews with psychiatrists, patients with MDD, and members of the public to more fully comprehend these groups’ perceptions of barriers to using these therapies.1 They raised concerns about limitations to access posed by the limited geographic availability of these treatments, their cost, and lack of insurance coverage. In addition, each stakeholder group cited lack of knowledge about PEIs as a perceived barrier to their wider implementation in depression care.
Our participants recognized there are significant geographic limitations to accessing PEIs, as many of these treatments are available only in large, well-resourced cities. This is especially true for DBS and ABIs as they remain investigational, require neurosurgery, and currently are offered only during clinical research trials. However, even for established therapies like ECT and rTMS, access often remains limited to larger treatment centers. Further, training on the proper implementation and use of these modalities is limited in the United States. Current requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education state only that psychiatry residents demonstrate knowledge of these therapies and their indications, falling short of requiring first-hand experience in referring or administering them.2
Our participants also perceived the cost of these therapies as a significant barrier affecting a large proportion of patients who could potentially benefit from them. Another frequently mentioned barrier is the lack of insurance coverage for existing PEIs, particularly rTMS. Even when insurance covers treatment with an approved PEI (for example, ECT, rTMS), there may be a requirement to have tried and failed multiple antidepressant medications first. These insurance requirements may contribute to a lack of general clarity about when these treatments should be used. The psychiatrists we interviewed, for example, were almost evenly split between believing that ECT and/or rTMS should be offered earlier in the course of therapy and believing that they should be reserved only for patients with treatment-resistant depression.
Further, some psychiatrists we interviewed stated that they wanted more information about the appropriate use of these treatments. This is unsurprising, as the available guidelines for the approved electroceutical treatments are outdated. Although the American Psychiatric Association Task Force is due to publish updated guidelines for ECT, it has been more than 20 years since the current guidelines were published.3 More recent guidelines, such as those issued in 2016 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments cite studies that were even then several years old.4 For rTMS, newer guidelines are available, but they have not yet been revised to include recent developments such as the SAINT protocol.5,6
While useful, clinical guidelines do not provide all of the information psychiatrists require for clinical decision-making. They are only as good as the evidence available and to the extent that they include all of the considerations important to psychiatrists and the specific patients they are treating.7,8 We asked the psychiatrists in our interviews what practical information they would like to see included in treatment guidelines. They offered a range of suggestions: better guidance about which patients would be most likely to benefit, when to offer the treatments, and how to combine these therapies with other interventions.
For the experimental PEIs (DBS and ABIs), similar questions and concerns arise. In the current research context, psychiatrists may not be aware of which patients are good candidates for referral to clinical trials. If these therapies are approved, similar questions about patient selection and place in treatment (for example, first line, second line, etc.) remain.9
Finally, each of our participant groups believed that patients and the public lack adequate knowledge about electroceutical interventions, and they emphasized the importance of giving potential patients sufficient information to enable them to provide valid informed consent. This is important in the case of the approved electroceutical therapies (ECT and rTMS), in part because of the potential for decision-making to be influenced unduly by misinformation and controversy – especially given that the media’s depiction of these interventions might influence patients’ willingness to receive helpful therapies such as ECT.10
Our interviews were used to inform the development of a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, which will provide further information about perceived barriers to accessing PEIs.
Dr. Bluhm is associate professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Achtyes is director of the division of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids. Dr. McCright is chair of the department of sociology at Michigan State University. Dr. Cabrera is Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Neuroethics at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park.
References
1. Cabrera LY et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612.
2. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Psychiatry – Program Requirements and FAQs. https://www.acgme.org/specialties/psychiatry/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/
3. American Psychiatric Association. The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy, Second Edition: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging. 2001.
4. Miley RV et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;61(9):561-75. doi: 10.1177/0706743716660033.
5. Perera T et al. Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):336-46. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.03.010.
6. Cole EJ et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 1;177(8):716-26. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19070720.
7. Gabriel FC et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 21;15(4):e0231700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231700.
8. Woolf SH et al. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527.
9. Widge AS et al. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 15;79(4):e9-10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.005.
10. Sienaert P. Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov-Dec;9(6):882-91. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.07.005.
Universal testing for Lp(a): What are we waiting for?
It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.
Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?
Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).
Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.
A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
One-time cost, lifetime benefit?
Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.
As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.
Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.
The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
U.S. guidelines need updating
To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.
To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.
The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.
Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.
Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.
Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?
Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).
Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.
A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
One-time cost, lifetime benefit?
Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.
As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.
Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.
The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
U.S. guidelines need updating
To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.
To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.
The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.
Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.
Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.
Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?
Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).
Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.
A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
One-time cost, lifetime benefit?
Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.
As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.
Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.
The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
U.S. guidelines need updating
To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.
To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.
The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.
Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.
Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Is the American Venous Forum consensus statement on lymphedema helpful?
Despite treatments, patients still continue to suffer with symptoms such as pain and leg heaviness, and get only mild improvement. Patients receiving treatments rarely become symptom free.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), primary or congenital lymphedema is a rare disorder occurring in 1 out of 100,00 Americans. On the other hand, secondary or acquired lymphedema is seen in 1 out of every 1,000 and is a complication of many cancers. For example, 1 out of every 5 women who survive breast cancer will develop lymphedema.
Given the statistics, primary care doctors will likely be responsible for treating patients with this disorder. It is important to note that the American Venous Forum consensus statement concluded that the diagnosis can be made based on clinical exam alone.
Given this fact, practitioners should be able to distinguish lymphedema from other similar diseases. As primary care doctors, we are likely to be the first ones to evaluate and diagnose this disease and need to be proficient on physical findings. We should also know the risk factors. No tests need to be performed, and this is a positive in this time of rising health care costs.
Another important conclusion of the consensus statement is that patients with chronic venous insufficiency should be treated the same as patients with lymphedema, especially given the fact that it can be a secondary cause of lymphedema. However, those disagreeing with this in the panel that developed the consensus statement endorsed doing a venous ultrasound to establish the cause.
Chronic venous insufficiency and lymphedema are often confused for each other, and the fact that they should be treated the same further establishes the fact that no further testing is needed. It can be argued that if we order a test when we suspect lymphedema, it serves only to drive up the cost and delays the initiation of treatment.
One area in which the panel of experts who developed the consensus statement showed some variability was in their recommendations for the treatment of lymphedema. Regular use of compression stockings to reduce lymphedema progression and manual lymphatic drainage were favored by most of the panel members, while Velcro devices and surgery were not.
While it is worthwhile to note this conclusion, determining how to treat a patient in clinical practice is often much more difficult. For one thing, some of these treatments are hard to get covered by insurance companies. Also, there is no objective data, unlike blood pressure or diabetic readings, to show the efficacy of a therapy for lymphedema. Instead, a diagnosis of lymphedema is based on a patient’s subjective symptoms. Many patients experience no substantial improvement from treatment, and even modest improvements can be considered a failure to them.
Another obstacle to treatment is that many patients find the treatment modalities uncomfortable or unsustainable. Some find the compression devices painful, for example. But often, they are given ones that have not been custom fitted to them, especially in the days of COVID when these are most often shipped to the patients’ homes. Also, manual drainage can be very time-consuming. To be effective, some patients need to do it more than once a day and it can take 30-60 minutes. Patients have jobs to go to and just don’t have the downtime to be able to do it effectively.
While this consensus statement does a good job analyzing current diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema, further research is needed to find new treatments and better education of clinicians needs to be done.
Lymphedema is an often-overlooked diagnosis despite having obvious clinical findings. There is currently no cure for lymphedema and the treatments that we do have available are not going to eliminate symptoms.
Patients are often frustrated by the lack of clinical improvement and there is little left to offer them. If we truly want to make an impact in our lymphedema patients, we need a better treatment. For now, we can offer them what is proven by the best evidence to reduce symptoms and support them in their suffering. Sometimes a listening ear and kind heart can make an even larger impact than just offering a treatment that doesn’t cure their disease.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
Despite treatments, patients still continue to suffer with symptoms such as pain and leg heaviness, and get only mild improvement. Patients receiving treatments rarely become symptom free.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), primary or congenital lymphedema is a rare disorder occurring in 1 out of 100,00 Americans. On the other hand, secondary or acquired lymphedema is seen in 1 out of every 1,000 and is a complication of many cancers. For example, 1 out of every 5 women who survive breast cancer will develop lymphedema.
Given the statistics, primary care doctors will likely be responsible for treating patients with this disorder. It is important to note that the American Venous Forum consensus statement concluded that the diagnosis can be made based on clinical exam alone.
Given this fact, practitioners should be able to distinguish lymphedema from other similar diseases. As primary care doctors, we are likely to be the first ones to evaluate and diagnose this disease and need to be proficient on physical findings. We should also know the risk factors. No tests need to be performed, and this is a positive in this time of rising health care costs.
Another important conclusion of the consensus statement is that patients with chronic venous insufficiency should be treated the same as patients with lymphedema, especially given the fact that it can be a secondary cause of lymphedema. However, those disagreeing with this in the panel that developed the consensus statement endorsed doing a venous ultrasound to establish the cause.
Chronic venous insufficiency and lymphedema are often confused for each other, and the fact that they should be treated the same further establishes the fact that no further testing is needed. It can be argued that if we order a test when we suspect lymphedema, it serves only to drive up the cost and delays the initiation of treatment.
One area in which the panel of experts who developed the consensus statement showed some variability was in their recommendations for the treatment of lymphedema. Regular use of compression stockings to reduce lymphedema progression and manual lymphatic drainage were favored by most of the panel members, while Velcro devices and surgery were not.
While it is worthwhile to note this conclusion, determining how to treat a patient in clinical practice is often much more difficult. For one thing, some of these treatments are hard to get covered by insurance companies. Also, there is no objective data, unlike blood pressure or diabetic readings, to show the efficacy of a therapy for lymphedema. Instead, a diagnosis of lymphedema is based on a patient’s subjective symptoms. Many patients experience no substantial improvement from treatment, and even modest improvements can be considered a failure to them.
Another obstacle to treatment is that many patients find the treatment modalities uncomfortable or unsustainable. Some find the compression devices painful, for example. But often, they are given ones that have not been custom fitted to them, especially in the days of COVID when these are most often shipped to the patients’ homes. Also, manual drainage can be very time-consuming. To be effective, some patients need to do it more than once a day and it can take 30-60 minutes. Patients have jobs to go to and just don’t have the downtime to be able to do it effectively.
While this consensus statement does a good job analyzing current diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema, further research is needed to find new treatments and better education of clinicians needs to be done.
Lymphedema is an often-overlooked diagnosis despite having obvious clinical findings. There is currently no cure for lymphedema and the treatments that we do have available are not going to eliminate symptoms.
Patients are often frustrated by the lack of clinical improvement and there is little left to offer them. If we truly want to make an impact in our lymphedema patients, we need a better treatment. For now, we can offer them what is proven by the best evidence to reduce symptoms and support them in their suffering. Sometimes a listening ear and kind heart can make an even larger impact than just offering a treatment that doesn’t cure their disease.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
Despite treatments, patients still continue to suffer with symptoms such as pain and leg heaviness, and get only mild improvement. Patients receiving treatments rarely become symptom free.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), primary or congenital lymphedema is a rare disorder occurring in 1 out of 100,00 Americans. On the other hand, secondary or acquired lymphedema is seen in 1 out of every 1,000 and is a complication of many cancers. For example, 1 out of every 5 women who survive breast cancer will develop lymphedema.
Given the statistics, primary care doctors will likely be responsible for treating patients with this disorder. It is important to note that the American Venous Forum consensus statement concluded that the diagnosis can be made based on clinical exam alone.
Given this fact, practitioners should be able to distinguish lymphedema from other similar diseases. As primary care doctors, we are likely to be the first ones to evaluate and diagnose this disease and need to be proficient on physical findings. We should also know the risk factors. No tests need to be performed, and this is a positive in this time of rising health care costs.
Another important conclusion of the consensus statement is that patients with chronic venous insufficiency should be treated the same as patients with lymphedema, especially given the fact that it can be a secondary cause of lymphedema. However, those disagreeing with this in the panel that developed the consensus statement endorsed doing a venous ultrasound to establish the cause.
Chronic venous insufficiency and lymphedema are often confused for each other, and the fact that they should be treated the same further establishes the fact that no further testing is needed. It can be argued that if we order a test when we suspect lymphedema, it serves only to drive up the cost and delays the initiation of treatment.
One area in which the panel of experts who developed the consensus statement showed some variability was in their recommendations for the treatment of lymphedema. Regular use of compression stockings to reduce lymphedema progression and manual lymphatic drainage were favored by most of the panel members, while Velcro devices and surgery were not.
While it is worthwhile to note this conclusion, determining how to treat a patient in clinical practice is often much more difficult. For one thing, some of these treatments are hard to get covered by insurance companies. Also, there is no objective data, unlike blood pressure or diabetic readings, to show the efficacy of a therapy for lymphedema. Instead, a diagnosis of lymphedema is based on a patient’s subjective symptoms. Many patients experience no substantial improvement from treatment, and even modest improvements can be considered a failure to them.
Another obstacle to treatment is that many patients find the treatment modalities uncomfortable or unsustainable. Some find the compression devices painful, for example. But often, they are given ones that have not been custom fitted to them, especially in the days of COVID when these are most often shipped to the patients’ homes. Also, manual drainage can be very time-consuming. To be effective, some patients need to do it more than once a day and it can take 30-60 minutes. Patients have jobs to go to and just don’t have the downtime to be able to do it effectively.
While this consensus statement does a good job analyzing current diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema, further research is needed to find new treatments and better education of clinicians needs to be done.
Lymphedema is an often-overlooked diagnosis despite having obvious clinical findings. There is currently no cure for lymphedema and the treatments that we do have available are not going to eliminate symptoms.
Patients are often frustrated by the lack of clinical improvement and there is little left to offer them. If we truly want to make an impact in our lymphedema patients, we need a better treatment. For now, we can offer them what is proven by the best evidence to reduce symptoms and support them in their suffering. Sometimes a listening ear and kind heart can make an even larger impact than just offering a treatment that doesn’t cure their disease.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
Managing respiratory symptoms in the ‘tripledemic’ era
Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.
Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.
It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.
These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.
Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.
But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.
However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.
Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.
I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.
Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.
My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.
Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.
Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.
Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.
It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.
These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.
Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.
But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.
However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.
Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.
I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.
Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.
My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.
Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.
Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.
Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.
It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.
These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.
Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.
But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.
However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.
Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.
I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.
Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.
My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.
Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.
Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.