User login
How to explain physician compounding to legislators
In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.
[polldaddy:9779752]
The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.
The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.
We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.
What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.
First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.
Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.
Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.
Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.
A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.
It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.
If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com
This column was updated June 22, 2017.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.
[polldaddy:9779752]
The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.
The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.
We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.
What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.
First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.
Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.
Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.
Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.
A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.
It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.
If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com
This column was updated June 22, 2017.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.
[polldaddy:9779752]
The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.
The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.
We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.
What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.
First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.
Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.
Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.
Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.
A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.
It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.
If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com
This column was updated June 22, 2017.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
CRC Screening: Right Patient, Right Test, Right Time
It has been three and a half years since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age to start colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, two major medical groups — the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians — felt that the evidence was insufficient to support this change.
Comparing CRC screening rates in more than 10 million adults aged 45-49 during the 20 months preceding and 20 months following the USPSTF recommendation, researchers found significant increases during the latter time period, with the greatest increases among persons of high socioeconomic status or living in metropolitan areas.
Another study addressed concerns that younger adults may be less likely to follow up on positive screening results or more likely to have false positives on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Patients aged 45-49 years were slightly less likely to have a positive FIT result than 50-year-olds, but they had similar rates of colonoscopy completion and similar percentages of abnormal findings on colonoscopy.
Although the sensitivity and specificity of FIT varies quite a bit across different test brands, its overall effectiveness at reducing colorectal cancer deaths is well established. In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved three new screening options: a blood-based screening test (Shield), a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard Plus), and a multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense) with similar performance characteristics as Cologuard Plus. The latter two tests will become available early next year.
This profusion of noninvasive options for CRC screening will challenge those tasked with developing the next iteration of the USPSTF recommendations. Not only must future guidelines establish what evidence threshold is sufficient to recommend a new screening strategy, but they also will need to consider the population-level consequences of relative utilization of different tests. For example, a cost-effectiveness analysis found that more CRC deaths would occur if people who would have otherwise accepted colonoscopy or fecal tests chose to be screened with Shield instead; however, this negative outcome could be offset if for every three of these test substitutions, two other people chose Shield who would otherwise have not been screened at all.
In the meantime, it is important for primary care clinicians to be familiar with evidence-based intervals for CRC screening tests and test eligibility criteria. A troubling study of patients who completed a multitarget stool DNA test in a Midwestern health system in 2021 found that more than one in five had the test ordered inappropriately, based on USPSTF guidelines. Reasons for inappropriate testing included having had a colonoscopy within the past 10 years, a family history of CRC, symptoms suggestive of possible CRC, age younger than 45, and a prior diagnosis of colonic adenomas.
Just as a medication works best when the patient takes it as prescribed, a CRC screening test is most likely to yield more benefit than harm when it’s provided to the right patient at the right time.
Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, at Lancaster General Hospital in Pennsylvania. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It has been three and a half years since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age to start colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, two major medical groups — the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians — felt that the evidence was insufficient to support this change.
Comparing CRC screening rates in more than 10 million adults aged 45-49 during the 20 months preceding and 20 months following the USPSTF recommendation, researchers found significant increases during the latter time period, with the greatest increases among persons of high socioeconomic status or living in metropolitan areas.
Another study addressed concerns that younger adults may be less likely to follow up on positive screening results or more likely to have false positives on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Patients aged 45-49 years were slightly less likely to have a positive FIT result than 50-year-olds, but they had similar rates of colonoscopy completion and similar percentages of abnormal findings on colonoscopy.
Although the sensitivity and specificity of FIT varies quite a bit across different test brands, its overall effectiveness at reducing colorectal cancer deaths is well established. In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved three new screening options: a blood-based screening test (Shield), a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard Plus), and a multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense) with similar performance characteristics as Cologuard Plus. The latter two tests will become available early next year.
This profusion of noninvasive options for CRC screening will challenge those tasked with developing the next iteration of the USPSTF recommendations. Not only must future guidelines establish what evidence threshold is sufficient to recommend a new screening strategy, but they also will need to consider the population-level consequences of relative utilization of different tests. For example, a cost-effectiveness analysis found that more CRC deaths would occur if people who would have otherwise accepted colonoscopy or fecal tests chose to be screened with Shield instead; however, this negative outcome could be offset if for every three of these test substitutions, two other people chose Shield who would otherwise have not been screened at all.
In the meantime, it is important for primary care clinicians to be familiar with evidence-based intervals for CRC screening tests and test eligibility criteria. A troubling study of patients who completed a multitarget stool DNA test in a Midwestern health system in 2021 found that more than one in five had the test ordered inappropriately, based on USPSTF guidelines. Reasons for inappropriate testing included having had a colonoscopy within the past 10 years, a family history of CRC, symptoms suggestive of possible CRC, age younger than 45, and a prior diagnosis of colonic adenomas.
Just as a medication works best when the patient takes it as prescribed, a CRC screening test is most likely to yield more benefit than harm when it’s provided to the right patient at the right time.
Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, at Lancaster General Hospital in Pennsylvania. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It has been three and a half years since the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the age to start colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from 50 to 45. As I mentioned in a previous commentary, two major medical groups — the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians — felt that the evidence was insufficient to support this change.
Comparing CRC screening rates in more than 10 million adults aged 45-49 during the 20 months preceding and 20 months following the USPSTF recommendation, researchers found significant increases during the latter time period, with the greatest increases among persons of high socioeconomic status or living in metropolitan areas.
Another study addressed concerns that younger adults may be less likely to follow up on positive screening results or more likely to have false positives on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Patients aged 45-49 years were slightly less likely to have a positive FIT result than 50-year-olds, but they had similar rates of colonoscopy completion and similar percentages of abnormal findings on colonoscopy.
Although the sensitivity and specificity of FIT varies quite a bit across different test brands, its overall effectiveness at reducing colorectal cancer deaths is well established. In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved three new screening options: a blood-based screening test (Shield), a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard Plus), and a multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense) with similar performance characteristics as Cologuard Plus. The latter two tests will become available early next year.
This profusion of noninvasive options for CRC screening will challenge those tasked with developing the next iteration of the USPSTF recommendations. Not only must future guidelines establish what evidence threshold is sufficient to recommend a new screening strategy, but they also will need to consider the population-level consequences of relative utilization of different tests. For example, a cost-effectiveness analysis found that more CRC deaths would occur if people who would have otherwise accepted colonoscopy or fecal tests chose to be screened with Shield instead; however, this negative outcome could be offset if for every three of these test substitutions, two other people chose Shield who would otherwise have not been screened at all.
In the meantime, it is important for primary care clinicians to be familiar with evidence-based intervals for CRC screening tests and test eligibility criteria. A troubling study of patients who completed a multitarget stool DNA test in a Midwestern health system in 2021 found that more than one in five had the test ordered inappropriately, based on USPSTF guidelines. Reasons for inappropriate testing included having had a colonoscopy within the past 10 years, a family history of CRC, symptoms suggestive of possible CRC, age younger than 45, and a prior diagnosis of colonic adenomas.
Just as a medication works best when the patient takes it as prescribed, a CRC screening test is most likely to yield more benefit than harm when it’s provided to the right patient at the right time.
Dr. Lin is Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, at Lancaster General Hospital in Pennsylvania. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Six Updates on Stroke Management
This video transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall.
The Best Thrombolytic?
Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.
There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding.
We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications.
In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use.
Mobile Stroke Units
A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology.
The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital?
DOAC Reversal Agents
Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.
A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.
Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban.
Anticoagulation in ESUS
My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS.
The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin.
Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF
My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.
The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days.
Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.
Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This video transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall.
The Best Thrombolytic?
Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.
There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding.
We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications.
In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use.
Mobile Stroke Units
A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology.
The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital?
DOAC Reversal Agents
Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.
A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.
Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban.
Anticoagulation in ESUS
My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS.
The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin.
Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF
My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.
The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days.
Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.
Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This video transcript has been edited for clarity.
Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall.
The Best Thrombolytic?
Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.
There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding.
We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications.
In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use.
Mobile Stroke Units
A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology.
The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital?
DOAC Reversal Agents
Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.
A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.
Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban.
Anticoagulation in ESUS
My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS.
The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin.
Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF
My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.
The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days.
Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.
Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nodding Off While Feeding an Infant
In a recent survey of 1259 mothers published in the journal Pediatrics, 28% reported they had fallen asleep while feeding their babies, and 83% of those mothers reported that the sleep was unplanned. Although the study sample was small, the investigators found that sociodemographic factors did not increase the odds that a mother would fall asleep while feeding.
These numbers are not surprising, but nonetheless they are concerning because co-sleeping is a known risk factor for sudden unexplained infant death (SUID). Every parent will tell you during the first 6 months of their adventure in parenting they didn’t get enough sleep. In fact some will tell you that sleep deprivation was their chronic state for the child’s first year.
Falling asleep easily at times and places not intended for sleep is the primary symptom of sleep deprivation. SUID is the most tragic event associated with parental sleep deprivation, but it is certainly not the only one. Overtired parents are more likely to be involved in accidents and are more likely to make poor decisions, particularly those regarding how to respond to a crying or misbehaving child.
The investigators found that 24% of mothers who reported that their usual nighttime feeding location was a chair or sofa (14%). Not surprisingly, mothers who fed in chairs were less likely to fall asleep while feeding. Many of these mothers reported that they chose the chair because they thought they would be less likely to fall asleep and/or disturb other family members. One wonders how we should interpret these numbers in light of other research that has found it is “relatively less hazardous to fall asleep with an infant in the adult bed than on a chair or sofa.” Had these chair feeding mothers made the better choice under the circumstances? It would take a much larger and more granular study to answer that question.
Mothers who exclusively breastfed were more likely to fall asleep feeding than were those who partially breastfed or used formula. The investigators postulated that the infants of mothers who exclusively breastfed may have required more feedings because breast milk is more easily and quickly digested. I know this is a common explanation, but in my experience I have found that exclusively breastfed infants often use nursing as pacification and a sleep trigger and spend more time at the breast regardless of how quickly they emptied their stomachs.
This study also examined the effect of repeated educational interventions and support and found that mothers who received an intervention based on safe sleep practices were less likely to fall asleep while feeding than were the mothers who had received the intervention focused on exclusive breastfeeding value and barriers to its adoption.
Education is one avenue, particularly when it includes the mother’s partner who can play an important role as standby lifeguard to make sure the mother doesn’t fall asleep. Obviously, this is easier said than done because when there is a new baby in the house sleep deprivation is usually a shared experience.
Although I believe that my family is on the verge of gifting me a smartwatch to protect me from my own misadventures, I don’t have any personal experience with these wonders of modern technology. However, I suspect with very little tweaking a wearable sensor could be easily programmed to detect when a mother is beginning to fall asleep while she is feeding her infant. A smartwatch would be an expensive intervention and is unlikely to filter down to economically challenged families. On the other hand, this paper has reinforced our suspicions that sleep-deprived infant feeding is a significant problem. A subsidized loaner program for those families that can’t afford a smartwatch is an option that should be considered.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In a recent survey of 1259 mothers published in the journal Pediatrics, 28% reported they had fallen asleep while feeding their babies, and 83% of those mothers reported that the sleep was unplanned. Although the study sample was small, the investigators found that sociodemographic factors did not increase the odds that a mother would fall asleep while feeding.
These numbers are not surprising, but nonetheless they are concerning because co-sleeping is a known risk factor for sudden unexplained infant death (SUID). Every parent will tell you during the first 6 months of their adventure in parenting they didn’t get enough sleep. In fact some will tell you that sleep deprivation was their chronic state for the child’s first year.
Falling asleep easily at times and places not intended for sleep is the primary symptom of sleep deprivation. SUID is the most tragic event associated with parental sleep deprivation, but it is certainly not the only one. Overtired parents are more likely to be involved in accidents and are more likely to make poor decisions, particularly those regarding how to respond to a crying or misbehaving child.
The investigators found that 24% of mothers who reported that their usual nighttime feeding location was a chair or sofa (14%). Not surprisingly, mothers who fed in chairs were less likely to fall asleep while feeding. Many of these mothers reported that they chose the chair because they thought they would be less likely to fall asleep and/or disturb other family members. One wonders how we should interpret these numbers in light of other research that has found it is “relatively less hazardous to fall asleep with an infant in the adult bed than on a chair or sofa.” Had these chair feeding mothers made the better choice under the circumstances? It would take a much larger and more granular study to answer that question.
Mothers who exclusively breastfed were more likely to fall asleep feeding than were those who partially breastfed or used formula. The investigators postulated that the infants of mothers who exclusively breastfed may have required more feedings because breast milk is more easily and quickly digested. I know this is a common explanation, but in my experience I have found that exclusively breastfed infants often use nursing as pacification and a sleep trigger and spend more time at the breast regardless of how quickly they emptied their stomachs.
This study also examined the effect of repeated educational interventions and support and found that mothers who received an intervention based on safe sleep practices were less likely to fall asleep while feeding than were the mothers who had received the intervention focused on exclusive breastfeeding value and barriers to its adoption.
Education is one avenue, particularly when it includes the mother’s partner who can play an important role as standby lifeguard to make sure the mother doesn’t fall asleep. Obviously, this is easier said than done because when there is a new baby in the house sleep deprivation is usually a shared experience.
Although I believe that my family is on the verge of gifting me a smartwatch to protect me from my own misadventures, I don’t have any personal experience with these wonders of modern technology. However, I suspect with very little tweaking a wearable sensor could be easily programmed to detect when a mother is beginning to fall asleep while she is feeding her infant. A smartwatch would be an expensive intervention and is unlikely to filter down to economically challenged families. On the other hand, this paper has reinforced our suspicions that sleep-deprived infant feeding is a significant problem. A subsidized loaner program for those families that can’t afford a smartwatch is an option that should be considered.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In a recent survey of 1259 mothers published in the journal Pediatrics, 28% reported they had fallen asleep while feeding their babies, and 83% of those mothers reported that the sleep was unplanned. Although the study sample was small, the investigators found that sociodemographic factors did not increase the odds that a mother would fall asleep while feeding.
These numbers are not surprising, but nonetheless they are concerning because co-sleeping is a known risk factor for sudden unexplained infant death (SUID). Every parent will tell you during the first 6 months of their adventure in parenting they didn’t get enough sleep. In fact some will tell you that sleep deprivation was their chronic state for the child’s first year.
Falling asleep easily at times and places not intended for sleep is the primary symptom of sleep deprivation. SUID is the most tragic event associated with parental sleep deprivation, but it is certainly not the only one. Overtired parents are more likely to be involved in accidents and are more likely to make poor decisions, particularly those regarding how to respond to a crying or misbehaving child.
The investigators found that 24% of mothers who reported that their usual nighttime feeding location was a chair or sofa (14%). Not surprisingly, mothers who fed in chairs were less likely to fall asleep while feeding. Many of these mothers reported that they chose the chair because they thought they would be less likely to fall asleep and/or disturb other family members. One wonders how we should interpret these numbers in light of other research that has found it is “relatively less hazardous to fall asleep with an infant in the adult bed than on a chair or sofa.” Had these chair feeding mothers made the better choice under the circumstances? It would take a much larger and more granular study to answer that question.
Mothers who exclusively breastfed were more likely to fall asleep feeding than were those who partially breastfed or used formula. The investigators postulated that the infants of mothers who exclusively breastfed may have required more feedings because breast milk is more easily and quickly digested. I know this is a common explanation, but in my experience I have found that exclusively breastfed infants often use nursing as pacification and a sleep trigger and spend more time at the breast regardless of how quickly they emptied their stomachs.
This study also examined the effect of repeated educational interventions and support and found that mothers who received an intervention based on safe sleep practices were less likely to fall asleep while feeding than were the mothers who had received the intervention focused on exclusive breastfeeding value and barriers to its adoption.
Education is one avenue, particularly when it includes the mother’s partner who can play an important role as standby lifeguard to make sure the mother doesn’t fall asleep. Obviously, this is easier said than done because when there is a new baby in the house sleep deprivation is usually a shared experience.
Although I believe that my family is on the verge of gifting me a smartwatch to protect me from my own misadventures, I don’t have any personal experience with these wonders of modern technology. However, I suspect with very little tweaking a wearable sensor could be easily programmed to detect when a mother is beginning to fall asleep while she is feeding her infant. A smartwatch would be an expensive intervention and is unlikely to filter down to economically challenged families. On the other hand, this paper has reinforced our suspicions that sleep-deprived infant feeding is a significant problem. A subsidized loaner program for those families that can’t afford a smartwatch is an option that should be considered.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
What To Do With Lipoprotein(a)?
Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.
What do you recommend?
There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.
Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.1
Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease.
PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.2 There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.
In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy.
If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.
Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.
2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.
Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.
What do you recommend?
There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.
Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.1
Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease.
PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.2 There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.
In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy.
If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.
Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.
2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.
Case: 45-year-old woman comes to clinic and requests lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] testing. She has a family history of early coronary disease (mother age 50, sister age 48) and has hypertension with home blood pressure readings of 130-140/70-75. She had a lipid panel checked last year which showed a total cholesterol of 210 mg/dL, LDL 145 mg/dL, HDL 45 mg/dL, and triglycerides of 100 mg/dL. She does not smoke and is currently taking irbesartan, chlorthalidone, sertraline, a multivitamin, and vitamin D.
What do you recommend?
There has been a great deal of media attention on testing for Lp(a). Many of my patients are requesting testing although many of them do not need it. This patient is an exception. I think Lp(a) testing would help inform her medical care. She has a family history of early coronary disease in her mother and sister, but her own lipid profile is not worrisome.
Her 10-year cardiovascular disease risk is 2%. The cardiac risk calculator does not incorporate family history; I think this is a situation where testing for Lp(a)(as well as apolipoprotein B) can be helpful. If her Lp(a) is elevated, it helps reassess her risk and that information would be helpful in targeting aggressive interventions for other CV risk factors, including optimal blood pressure control. In her case, pushing for a goal systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and making sure she is doing regular exercise and eating a heart-healthy diet. The current consensus statement on Lp(a) recommends that patients with elevated levels have aggressive lifestyle and cardiovascular risk management.1
Currently, there are no medical treatments available for high Lp(a) for primary prevention. Apheresis has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with familial hyperlipidemia who have LDL ≥ 100 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL, and coronary or other artery disease.
PCSK9 inhibitors have shown a reduction in major cardiovascular events in patients who have established coronary artery disease and high Lp(a) levels, albeit with limited data. Unlike statins, which increase Lp(a) levels, PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels.2 There are promising early results in a phase 2 trial of the oral drug muvalaplin lowering Lp(a) levels by up to 85% for the highest dose, but there are no peer-reviewed articles confirming these results and no outcome trials at this time.
In patients who are already recognized as high risk, especially those with established coronary artery disease, measuring Lp(a) levels offer little benefit. These patients should already be receiving aggressive medical therapy to reach blood pressure targets if hypertensive, maximal lifestyle modifications, and statin therapy.
If these patients need more therapy because of continued coronary events, despite maximal conventional medical therapy, then adding a PCSK9 inhibitor would be appropriate whether or not a patient has a high Lp(a) level. Once Lp(a) targeted therapies are available and show clinical benefit, then the role of Lp(a) measurement and treatment in this population will be clearer.
Pearl: Most patients do not need Lp(a) testing. There are no FDA-approved treatments for high Lp(a) levels.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Kronenberg F et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: A European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925-46.
2. Ruscica M et al. Lipoprotein(a) and PCSK9 inhibition: Clinical evidence Eur Heart J Suppl 2020;Nov 18(Suppl L):L53–L56.
From Fish Tanks to Cartoons
There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.
Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.
Personally, When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.
I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.
Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...
You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.
My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.
We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.
Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.
I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.
Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.
Personally, When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.
I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.
Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...
You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.
My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.
We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.
Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.
I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.
Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.
Personally, When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.
I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.
Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...
You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.
My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.
We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.
Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.
I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.
Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Exposomania
If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.
Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.
I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood.
The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.
The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation.
I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”
I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.
We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective.
The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient.
When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.
I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best.
Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.
Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.
I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood.
The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.
The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation.
I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”
I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.
We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective.
The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient.
When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.
I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best.
Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
If we’ve learned anything about obesity prevention it’s that if we wait too long the die is cast and our success rate is nil. The GLP-1 antagonists seem to be a workable solution for treating the adult and adolescent population, but I have been afraid that their success will divert too much of our attention away from prevention.
Fortunately, there still seems to be a few researchers committed to the age group in which obesity could be headed off before our only option is treatment. In one recent study, “Neighborhood Food Access in Early Life and Trajectories of Child Body Mass Index and Obesity,” researchers collected data from more than 28,000 children in 55 cohorts during the period from 1994 to 2023). The investigators found that residence in a low–food access, low-income neighborhoods during pregnancy and early childhood was associated with higher BMI “Z” scores, a higher risk of obesity, and severe obesity in childhood. The researchers defined low food access as living greater than 0.5 miles away from a grocery store in an urban setting or greater than 10 minutes away in a rural setting. I don’t think those associations should surprise us, but having some data from a large population may be valuable should we ever find the political will to undertake any steps toward prevention.
I found a Viewpoint article published 2 weeks earlier in the same journal, titled, “The Exposome as a Key to Understanding Pediatric Health Disparities.” I know what the “biome” is and have heard gastroenterologists expound on the power that billions of our little single-celled friends residing in our gut have on seemingly unrelated and spatially distant events in our body. But, “exposome” was a new word for me, although it turns out the concept is simple and one I had harbored since late childhood.
The opening sentence of the article reads “One’s environment profoundly changes health outcomes throughout one’s lifespan.” That truism was obvious to my 7-year-old self as I observed my playmates who lived in a poorly kept house in the less desirable area two blocks away and didn’t eat breakfast and were sick more often than the rest of us more-fortunates.
The authors define the exposome as the “totality of an individual’s non-genetic exposures, including psychosocial experiences, structural social determinants, chemical pollution, and neighborhood infrastructure.” This seems to be a pretty complete description of the nurture side of the nature versus nurture conversation.
I suspect that, like me, most of you through observation and intuition have included your own interpretation of the exposome in your professional activities. However, the authors feel we could be more robust in our efforts and claim that They go on to call for incorporation of an “exposome lens in pediatric research and healthcare delivery.”
I’m not sure this is a valid criticism. There is certainly more that could be done when it comes to research that examines the effect of environmental stressors. And, I suspect the authors would view this recent paper on the association between neighborhood food access as a step in the right direction. However, when it comes to healthcare delivery, at least at the level where the stethoscope meets the chest, I think, or at least hope, the authors are underestimating the observational skills and sensitivity of primary care providers.
We were all taught to take an appropriate medical history when evaluating a patient. And, through our formal education, our personal observations and through exposure to papers like this one on food access we must be aware of the effect of environmental stressors on our patients’ health. Is there more we could learn about those kind of associations? Certainly. This is where a more broadly focused exposome lens could be most effective.
The authors of the article observed: “The effect of the exposome is not uniform for all individuals but rather intersects across identities precipitating unique outcomes.” The practical reality is that to generate statistically significant data research must look at identities. This doesn’t mean that large population studies are without value. However, it does obligate investigators to include that caveat about the uniqueness of the individual in their conclusions. And, it is our duty as providers to keep this reality in mind as we interpret studies we read in the context of each individual patient.
When it comes to healthcare delivery at the structural level, I am concerned that we are moving in a direction that is making it more difficult for the provider to become familiar with the patient’s exposome. I am talking about an over-reliance on the team care delivery model that too often results in the “We never/seldom see the same provider” patient complaint.
I don’t care how slick and user-friendly a practice’s EHR system is; the best way to learn about a patient’s exposome is by repeated exposure (pun unintended) to the same provider. This isn’t always possible, and a well-crafted and conscientiously managed EHR can fill in some of the gaps. But, it is a distant second best.
Awareness of the importance of the exposome is only the starting point. Finding the political will to make the changes necessary to improve our patients’ outcomes is the bigger challenge. Grocery stores well-stocked with healthy foods don’t just pop up where we want them because we think they may hold answer to preventing pediatric obesity.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Recognizing Burnout: Why Physicians Often Miss the Signs in Themselves
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
- Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
- Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
- Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
- Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: This section explores why physicians often struggle to recognize burnout within themselves, partly due to stigma and a tendency to focus on productivity over well-being. Dr. Tyra Fainstad shares personal experiences of burnout symptoms, emphasizing the importance of awareness and self-reflection. Recognizing and addressing burnout early can help physicians find healthier coping strategies, avoid productivity traps, and seek support.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians struggle to identify burnout due to stigma and self-blame.
- Awareness of burnout symptoms is essential for early intervention and healthy coping.
- Seeking support can prevent burnout from worsening and improve quality of life.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Breaking the Cycle: Why Self-Compassion Is Essential for Today’s Physicians
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad explores the ingrained culture in medicine that encourages self-criticism, with many physicians feeling that they must be hard on themselves to succeed. Dr Fainstad challenges this belief, advocating for self-compassion as a healthier alternative. The evolving medical field now includes physicians who prioritize well-being without sacrificing quality of care, underscoring the importance of self-kindness for sustainable practice.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians believe that self-criticism is necessary for success, a mindset rooted in medical culture.
- Practicing self-compassion can improve long-term resilience and prevent burnout.
- The changing landscape of healthcare supports a more balanced approach to physician well-being.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad explores the ingrained culture in medicine that encourages self-criticism, with many physicians feeling that they must be hard on themselves to succeed. Dr Fainstad challenges this belief, advocating for self-compassion as a healthier alternative. The evolving medical field now includes physicians who prioritize well-being without sacrificing quality of care, underscoring the importance of self-kindness for sustainable practice.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians believe that self-criticism is necessary for success, a mindset rooted in medical culture.
- Practicing self-compassion can improve long-term resilience and prevent burnout.
- The changing landscape of healthcare supports a more balanced approach to physician well-being.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad explores the ingrained culture in medicine that encourages self-criticism, with many physicians feeling that they must be hard on themselves to succeed. Dr Fainstad challenges this belief, advocating for self-compassion as a healthier alternative. The evolving medical field now includes physicians who prioritize well-being without sacrificing quality of care, underscoring the importance of self-kindness for sustainable practice.
Key Takeaways:
- Many physicians believe that self-criticism is necessary for success, a mindset rooted in medical culture.
- Practicing self-compassion can improve long-term resilience and prevent burnout.
- The changing landscape of healthcare supports a more balanced approach to physician well-being.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
Lotte Dyrbye, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Co-inventor of the Well-being Index and its derivatives, which Mayo Clinic has licensed. Dyrbye receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Finding Fulfillment Beyond Metrics: A Physician’s Path to Lasting Well-Being
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad shares her personal experience with burnout and the journey to recovery through coaching and self-compassion. She describes the pressures of seeking validation through external achievements, which ultimately led to a crisis in self-worth after medical training. Through coaching, she learned to cultivate a sense of internal fulfillment, reconnecting with her passion for medicine and achieving a healthier balance.
Key Takeaways:
- Relying solely on external validation can deepen burnout and affect well-being.
- Coaching empowers physicians to develop self-compassion and sustainable coping strategies.
- Shifting from external to internal validation strengthens long-term fulfillment and job satisfaction.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad shares her personal experience with burnout and the journey to recovery through coaching and self-compassion. She describes the pressures of seeking validation through external achievements, which ultimately led to a crisis in self-worth after medical training. Through coaching, she learned to cultivate a sense of internal fulfillment, reconnecting with her passion for medicine and achieving a healthier balance.
Key Takeaways:
- Relying solely on external validation can deepen burnout and affect well-being.
- Coaching empowers physicians to develop self-compassion and sustainable coping strategies.
- Shifting from external to internal validation strengthens long-term fulfillment and job satisfaction.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Summary and Key Highlights
Summary: Dr Tyra Fainstad shares her personal experience with burnout and the journey to recovery through coaching and self-compassion. She describes the pressures of seeking validation through external achievements, which ultimately led to a crisis in self-worth after medical training. Through coaching, she learned to cultivate a sense of internal fulfillment, reconnecting with her passion for medicine and achieving a healthier balance.
Key Takeaways:
- Relying solely on external validation can deepen burnout and affect well-being.
- Coaching empowers physicians to develop self-compassion and sustainable coping strategies.
- Shifting from external to internal validation strengthens long-term fulfillment and job satisfaction.
Our Editors Also Recommend:
Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2024: ‘We Have Much Work to Do’
Medscape Hospitalist Burnout & Depression Report 2024: Seeking Progress, Balance
Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2024: The Ongoing Struggle for Balance
A Transformative Rx for Burnout, Grief, and Illness: Dance
Next Medscape Masters Event:
Stay at the forefront of obesity care. Register for exclusive insights and the latest treatment innovations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.