Cardiology News

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr Rachel Rubin. I am a urologist with fellowship training in sexual medicine. Today I’m going to explain why I may recommend that your patients put a needle directly into their penises for help with erectile dysfunction (ED).

I know that sounds crazy, but in a recent video when I talked about erection hardness, I acknowledged that it may not be easy to talk with patients about their penises, but it’s important.

ED can be a marker for cardiovascular disease, with 50% of our 50-year-old patients having ED. As physicians, we must do a better job of talking to our patients about ED and letting them know that it’s a marker for overall health.

How do we treat ED? Primary care doctors can do a great deal for patients with ED, and there are other things that urologists can do when you run out of options in your own toolbox.

What’s important for a healthy erection? You need three things: healthy muscle, healthy nerves, and healthy arteries. If anything goes wrong with muscles, nerves, or arteries, this is what leads to ED. Think through the algorithm of your patient’s medical history: Do they have diabetes, which can affect their nerves? Do they have high blood pressure, which can affect their arteries? Do they have problems with testosterone, which can affect the smooth muscles of the penis? Understanding your patient’s history can be really helpful when you figure out what is the best treatment strategy for your patient.

For the penis to work, those smooth muscles have to relax; therefore, your brain has to be relaxed, along with your pelvic floor muscles. The smooth muscle of the penis has to be relaxed so it can fill with blood, increase in girth and size, and hold that erection in place.

To treat ED, we have a biopsychosocial toolbox. Biology refers to the muscles, arteries, and nerves. The psychosocial component is stress: If your brain is stressed, you have a lot of adrenaline around that can tighten those smooth muscles and cause you to lose an erection.

So, what are these treatments? I’ll start with lifestyle. A healthy heart means a healthy penis, so, all of the things you already recommend for lifestyle changes can really help with ED. Sleep is important. Does your patient need a sleep study? Do they have sleep apnea? Are they exercising? Recent data show that exercise may be just as effective, if not more effective, than Viagra. How about a good diet? The Mediterranean diet seems to be the most helpful. So, encourage your patients to make dietary, exercise, sleep, and other lifestyle changes if they want to improve erectile function.

What about sex education? Most physicians didn’t get great education about sex in medical school, but it’s very important to our patients who likewise have had inadequate sex education. Ask questions, talk to them, explain what is normal.

I can’t stress enough how important mental health is to a great sex life. Everyone would benefit from sex therapy and becoming better at sex. We need to get better at communicating and educating patients and their partners to maximize their quality of life. If you need to refer to a specialist, we recommend going to psychologytoday.com or aasect.org to find a local sex therapist. Call them and use them in your referral networks.

In the “bio” component of the biopsychosocial approach, we can do a lot to treat ED with medications and hormones. Testosterone has been shown to help with low libido and erectile function. Checking the patient’s testosterone level can be very helpful. Pills — we are familiar with Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, and Stendra. The oral PDE-5 inhibitors have been around since the late 1990s and they work quite well for many people with ED. Viagra and Cialis are generic now and patients can get them fairly inexpensively with discount coupons from GoodRx or Cost Plus Drugs. They may not even have to worry about insurance coverage.

Pills relax the smooth muscle of the penis so that it fills with blood and becomes erect, but they don’t work for everybody. If pills stop working, we often talk about synergistic treatments — combining pills and devices. Devices for ED should be discussed more often, and clinicians should consider prescribing them. We commonly discuss eyeglasses and wheelchairs, but we don’t talk about the sexual health devices that could help patients have more success and fun in the bedroom.

What are the various types of devices for ED? One common device is a vacuum pump, which can be very effective. This is how they work: The penis is lubricated and placed into the pump. A button on the pump creates suction that brings blood into the penis. The patient then applies a constriction band around the base of the penis to hold that erection in place.

“Sex tech” has really expanded to help patients with ED with devices that vibrate and hold the erection in place. Vibrating devices allow for a better orgasm. We even have devices that monitor erectile fitness (like a Fitbit for the penis), gathering data to help patients understand the firmness of their erections.

Devices are helpful adjuncts, but they don’t always do enough to achieve an erect penis that’s hard enough for penetration. In those cases, we can recommend injections that increase smooth muscle relaxation of the penis. I know it sounds crazy. If the muscles, arteries, and nerves of the penis aren’t functioning well, additional smooth muscle relaxation can be achieved by injecting alprostadil (prostaglandin E1) directly into the penis. It’s a tiny needle. It doesn’t hurt. These injections can be quite helpful for our patients, and we often recommend them.

But what happens when your patient doesn’t even respond to injections or any of the synergistic treatments? They’ve tried everything. Urologists may suggest a surgical option, the penile implant. Penile implants contain a pump inside the scrotum that fills with fluid, allowing a rigid erection. Penile implants are wonderful for patients who can no longer get erections. Talking to a urologist about the pros and the cons and the risks and benefits of surgically placed implants is very important.

Finally, ED is a marker for cardiovascular disease. These patients may need a cardiology workup. They need to improve their general health. We have to ask our patients about their goals and what they care about, and find a toolbox that makes sense for each patient and couple to maximize their sexual health and quality of life. Don’t give up. If you have questions, let us know.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, is Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Private practice, Rachel Rubin MD PLLC, North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed ties with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr Rachel Rubin. I am a urologist with fellowship training in sexual medicine. Today I’m going to explain why I may recommend that your patients put a needle directly into their penises for help with erectile dysfunction (ED).

I know that sounds crazy, but in a recent video when I talked about erection hardness, I acknowledged that it may not be easy to talk with patients about their penises, but it’s important.

ED can be a marker for cardiovascular disease, with 50% of our 50-year-old patients having ED. As physicians, we must do a better job of talking to our patients about ED and letting them know that it’s a marker for overall health.

How do we treat ED? Primary care doctors can do a great deal for patients with ED, and there are other things that urologists can do when you run out of options in your own toolbox.

What’s important for a healthy erection? You need three things: healthy muscle, healthy nerves, and healthy arteries. If anything goes wrong with muscles, nerves, or arteries, this is what leads to ED. Think through the algorithm of your patient’s medical history: Do they have diabetes, which can affect their nerves? Do they have high blood pressure, which can affect their arteries? Do they have problems with testosterone, which can affect the smooth muscles of the penis? Understanding your patient’s history can be really helpful when you figure out what is the best treatment strategy for your patient.

For the penis to work, those smooth muscles have to relax; therefore, your brain has to be relaxed, along with your pelvic floor muscles. The smooth muscle of the penis has to be relaxed so it can fill with blood, increase in girth and size, and hold that erection in place.

To treat ED, we have a biopsychosocial toolbox. Biology refers to the muscles, arteries, and nerves. The psychosocial component is stress: If your brain is stressed, you have a lot of adrenaline around that can tighten those smooth muscles and cause you to lose an erection.

So, what are these treatments? I’ll start with lifestyle. A healthy heart means a healthy penis, so, all of the things you already recommend for lifestyle changes can really help with ED. Sleep is important. Does your patient need a sleep study? Do they have sleep apnea? Are they exercising? Recent data show that exercise may be just as effective, if not more effective, than Viagra. How about a good diet? The Mediterranean diet seems to be the most helpful. So, encourage your patients to make dietary, exercise, sleep, and other lifestyle changes if they want to improve erectile function.

What about sex education? Most physicians didn’t get great education about sex in medical school, but it’s very important to our patients who likewise have had inadequate sex education. Ask questions, talk to them, explain what is normal.

I can’t stress enough how important mental health is to a great sex life. Everyone would benefit from sex therapy and becoming better at sex. We need to get better at communicating and educating patients and their partners to maximize their quality of life. If you need to refer to a specialist, we recommend going to psychologytoday.com or aasect.org to find a local sex therapist. Call them and use them in your referral networks.

In the “bio” component of the biopsychosocial approach, we can do a lot to treat ED with medications and hormones. Testosterone has been shown to help with low libido and erectile function. Checking the patient’s testosterone level can be very helpful. Pills — we are familiar with Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, and Stendra. The oral PDE-5 inhibitors have been around since the late 1990s and they work quite well for many people with ED. Viagra and Cialis are generic now and patients can get them fairly inexpensively with discount coupons from GoodRx or Cost Plus Drugs. They may not even have to worry about insurance coverage.

Pills relax the smooth muscle of the penis so that it fills with blood and becomes erect, but they don’t work for everybody. If pills stop working, we often talk about synergistic treatments — combining pills and devices. Devices for ED should be discussed more often, and clinicians should consider prescribing them. We commonly discuss eyeglasses and wheelchairs, but we don’t talk about the sexual health devices that could help patients have more success and fun in the bedroom.

What are the various types of devices for ED? One common device is a vacuum pump, which can be very effective. This is how they work: The penis is lubricated and placed into the pump. A button on the pump creates suction that brings blood into the penis. The patient then applies a constriction band around the base of the penis to hold that erection in place.

“Sex tech” has really expanded to help patients with ED with devices that vibrate and hold the erection in place. Vibrating devices allow for a better orgasm. We even have devices that monitor erectile fitness (like a Fitbit for the penis), gathering data to help patients understand the firmness of their erections.

Devices are helpful adjuncts, but they don’t always do enough to achieve an erect penis that’s hard enough for penetration. In those cases, we can recommend injections that increase smooth muscle relaxation of the penis. I know it sounds crazy. If the muscles, arteries, and nerves of the penis aren’t functioning well, additional smooth muscle relaxation can be achieved by injecting alprostadil (prostaglandin E1) directly into the penis. It’s a tiny needle. It doesn’t hurt. These injections can be quite helpful for our patients, and we often recommend them.

But what happens when your patient doesn’t even respond to injections or any of the synergistic treatments? They’ve tried everything. Urologists may suggest a surgical option, the penile implant. Penile implants contain a pump inside the scrotum that fills with fluid, allowing a rigid erection. Penile implants are wonderful for patients who can no longer get erections. Talking to a urologist about the pros and the cons and the risks and benefits of surgically placed implants is very important.

Finally, ED is a marker for cardiovascular disease. These patients may need a cardiology workup. They need to improve their general health. We have to ask our patients about their goals and what they care about, and find a toolbox that makes sense for each patient and couple to maximize their sexual health and quality of life. Don’t give up. If you have questions, let us know.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, is Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Private practice, Rachel Rubin MD PLLC, North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed ties with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr Rachel Rubin. I am a urologist with fellowship training in sexual medicine. Today I’m going to explain why I may recommend that your patients put a needle directly into their penises for help with erectile dysfunction (ED).

I know that sounds crazy, but in a recent video when I talked about erection hardness, I acknowledged that it may not be easy to talk with patients about their penises, but it’s important.

ED can be a marker for cardiovascular disease, with 50% of our 50-year-old patients having ED. As physicians, we must do a better job of talking to our patients about ED and letting them know that it’s a marker for overall health.

How do we treat ED? Primary care doctors can do a great deal for patients with ED, and there are other things that urologists can do when you run out of options in your own toolbox.

What’s important for a healthy erection? You need three things: healthy muscle, healthy nerves, and healthy arteries. If anything goes wrong with muscles, nerves, or arteries, this is what leads to ED. Think through the algorithm of your patient’s medical history: Do they have diabetes, which can affect their nerves? Do they have high blood pressure, which can affect their arteries? Do they have problems with testosterone, which can affect the smooth muscles of the penis? Understanding your patient’s history can be really helpful when you figure out what is the best treatment strategy for your patient.

For the penis to work, those smooth muscles have to relax; therefore, your brain has to be relaxed, along with your pelvic floor muscles. The smooth muscle of the penis has to be relaxed so it can fill with blood, increase in girth and size, and hold that erection in place.

To treat ED, we have a biopsychosocial toolbox. Biology refers to the muscles, arteries, and nerves. The psychosocial component is stress: If your brain is stressed, you have a lot of adrenaline around that can tighten those smooth muscles and cause you to lose an erection.

So, what are these treatments? I’ll start with lifestyle. A healthy heart means a healthy penis, so, all of the things you already recommend for lifestyle changes can really help with ED. Sleep is important. Does your patient need a sleep study? Do they have sleep apnea? Are they exercising? Recent data show that exercise may be just as effective, if not more effective, than Viagra. How about a good diet? The Mediterranean diet seems to be the most helpful. So, encourage your patients to make dietary, exercise, sleep, and other lifestyle changes if they want to improve erectile function.

What about sex education? Most physicians didn’t get great education about sex in medical school, but it’s very important to our patients who likewise have had inadequate sex education. Ask questions, talk to them, explain what is normal.

I can’t stress enough how important mental health is to a great sex life. Everyone would benefit from sex therapy and becoming better at sex. We need to get better at communicating and educating patients and their partners to maximize their quality of life. If you need to refer to a specialist, we recommend going to psychologytoday.com or aasect.org to find a local sex therapist. Call them and use them in your referral networks.

In the “bio” component of the biopsychosocial approach, we can do a lot to treat ED with medications and hormones. Testosterone has been shown to help with low libido and erectile function. Checking the patient’s testosterone level can be very helpful. Pills — we are familiar with Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, and Stendra. The oral PDE-5 inhibitors have been around since the late 1990s and they work quite well for many people with ED. Viagra and Cialis are generic now and patients can get them fairly inexpensively with discount coupons from GoodRx or Cost Plus Drugs. They may not even have to worry about insurance coverage.

Pills relax the smooth muscle of the penis so that it fills with blood and becomes erect, but they don’t work for everybody. If pills stop working, we often talk about synergistic treatments — combining pills and devices. Devices for ED should be discussed more often, and clinicians should consider prescribing them. We commonly discuss eyeglasses and wheelchairs, but we don’t talk about the sexual health devices that could help patients have more success and fun in the bedroom.

What are the various types of devices for ED? One common device is a vacuum pump, which can be very effective. This is how they work: The penis is lubricated and placed into the pump. A button on the pump creates suction that brings blood into the penis. The patient then applies a constriction band around the base of the penis to hold that erection in place.

“Sex tech” has really expanded to help patients with ED with devices that vibrate and hold the erection in place. Vibrating devices allow for a better orgasm. We even have devices that monitor erectile fitness (like a Fitbit for the penis), gathering data to help patients understand the firmness of their erections.

Devices are helpful adjuncts, but they don’t always do enough to achieve an erect penis that’s hard enough for penetration. In those cases, we can recommend injections that increase smooth muscle relaxation of the penis. I know it sounds crazy. If the muscles, arteries, and nerves of the penis aren’t functioning well, additional smooth muscle relaxation can be achieved by injecting alprostadil (prostaglandin E1) directly into the penis. It’s a tiny needle. It doesn’t hurt. These injections can be quite helpful for our patients, and we often recommend them.

But what happens when your patient doesn’t even respond to injections or any of the synergistic treatments? They’ve tried everything. Urologists may suggest a surgical option, the penile implant. Penile implants contain a pump inside the scrotum that fills with fluid, allowing a rigid erection. Penile implants are wonderful for patients who can no longer get erections. Talking to a urologist about the pros and the cons and the risks and benefits of surgically placed implants is very important.

Finally, ED is a marker for cardiovascular disease. These patients may need a cardiology workup. They need to improve their general health. We have to ask our patients about their goals and what they care about, and find a toolbox that makes sense for each patient and couple to maximize their sexual health and quality of life. Don’t give up. If you have questions, let us know.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, is Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; Private practice, Rachel Rubin MD PLLC, North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed ties with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The positive results from the SELECT trial for the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) were hailed as ushering in a “new era for patients with obesity.” In the trial of overweight and obese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes, semaglutide showed meaningful reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with placebo.

“I definitely see increasing adoption of GLP-1 RAs by cardiologists and expect the number to increase now that the data support its use in secondary prevention,” said Nicole L. Lohr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Board of Governors, and Mary G. Waters, chair of cardiovascular medicine at UAB, Birmingham.

But many cardiologists are more hesitant. “I think there’s going to be an increasing urgency for cardiologists to start prescribing these drugs, but I don’t think the comfort to do so is that widespread at this point,” said American Heart Association (AHA) volunteer Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and chair of the AHA’s recent presidential advisory on cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health.

“Weight loss hasn’t been a central focus in our practice until recently, with the advent of these more powerful agents. There’s a need for more education around not only the use of these agents, but also around initiating weight loss discussions in a nonjudgmental way that reflects the complexity of obesity as a condition with multifactorial causes.”

The process will take time and may be similar to what happened with statins, he suggests. “Statins started in the endocrinology space, but as their cardiovascular benefits became more clear, they were increasingly adopted by cardiologists, primary care physicians, and others.”

Eugene Yang, MD, chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Council and codirector of UW Medicine’s Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program in Seattle, agrees that GLP-1 uptake by cardiologists will likely be slow. “It’s a bit premature to start prescribing right away,” he said. “Semaglutide hasn’t been approved for secondary prevention at this point, and until it’s approved specifically for that indication, I don’t think many cardiologists will prescribe it.”
 

Side Effects ‘Concerning’

Beyond the requisite approval, Dr. Yang is concerned about side effects such as gastroparesis, severe nausea, and vomiting. “I’m not sure cardiologists are going to feel comfortable helping patients deal with these effects.”

Because GLP-1 RAs are already being used widely in primary care, he says, “I personally would work in collaboration with either my primary care colleagues or with endocrinologists.”

Ambarish Pandey, MD, an associate professor of internal medicine (cardiology) and medical director of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, is already prescribing semaglutide to patients with HFpEF and obesity. “In terms of side effects, I just tell patients what to expect,” he says.

Dr. Pandey prepares patients for appetite reduction, early satiety and fullness, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. “Then I start low and slowly titrate to achieve enough weight loss. If they’re having adverse effects on a higher dose, I use a lower dose.”

The approach is working well for most patients, he says. “Obviously there’s some initial getting used to the drug, but once that has happened, patients like it because they see improvements in their exercise capacity and quality of life.”

But GLP-1 RAs are also associated with increased heart rate, which “is never good news,” notes Howard Weintraub, MD, a professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and clinical director of the NYU Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. At least some of the elevation may be masked by beta-blocker use, he suggests. “The mechanism is not well elucidated, but it is something we’re going to need to keep an eye on, because we don’t want to get ambushed.”
 

Cost, Access ‘Significant Barriers’

All the cardiologists this news organization spoke with agreed that cost and access will be significant barriers to widespread prescribing, at least for now.

“Prescribing for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk will probably give a reasonable amount of bang for your buck. But individuals with more adverse social determinants of health, who are more likely to have challenges with obesity and related complications, are also least likely to be able to pay the exorbitant costs out of pocket. So, this is also an important health equity issue,” Dr. Ndumele says.

Furthermore, he adds, where GLP-1 RAs will fit for those with a lower absolute CVD risk “is still a clear question.”

“Access comes two ways,” Dr. Weintraub says. “One is the supply, which continues to be an issue. You can’t sell the drug if you don’t have it.”

The other access route is the insurance companies. “Will they throw down a gauntlet and make cardiologists prove that a patient failed other obesity drugs before they can prescribe a GLP-1 RA? Some of the old obesity drugs are not only unpleasant to use, but they’re ineffective and may have bad cardiac signals.”

If the new drugs are approved for secondary prevention, patients will want them and doctors will want them, he says. The demand will be “huge,” and it’s not clear how it will be handled.

Dr. Pandey agrees that getting the drug without “good insurance” to cover the cost is a big challenge. “ As more of these drugs become available, hopefully the cost will come down, and hopefully access will grow as companies are able to scale up production.”
 

Add-On or Substitute?

Anticipating approval, Dr. Yang says it’s not yet clear where the GLP-1 RAs stand among the various available cardiovascular therapies.

“Based on the results of SELECT, one could argue that maybe it’s more important to get the weight down and reduce blood pressure versus adding another cholesterol-lowering medication, for example, especially if a patient is already on a statin and ezetimibe. But maybe their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is not exactly below the threshold of the current guideline. And maybe they’re overweight or prediabetic, and they can lose 10% or 15% of their body weight with a GLP-1 RA. You may have to pick and choose.”

That said, he adds, “Who’s going to be able to afford all of this? Some patients would be taking a PCSK9 inhibitor, bempedoic acid because their lipids are not optimized, then a GLP-1 receptor. Right there, we’re talking about at least $2000 a month for those three medications. That’s not feasible.”

“This is one of the things I’ve worried about, given all the drugs some of our patients are on,” Dr. Weintraub says. “The data on cholesterol-lowering drugs are so monumental, it’s hard to say you can do without it. The same is true of blood pressure-lowering medication. So to my mind, a GLP-1 RA is going to have to be an add-on.”

“The only good news is that unlike in the heart failure arena, patients are not paying for other drugs on top of it,” he says. “Statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and beta-blockers are all generic; they’re not going to leave a huge hole in the patient’s pocket when the donut hole [Medicare payment gap] comes around. So in this case, if the GLP-1 RAs get included, which I hope they will, the added cost may not be that horrible.”
 

What About Lifestyle Changes?

Everyone agreed that the drugs are not a substitute for lifestyle changes.

“I have seen many patients who take these medications reach plateaus, and when discontinued, gain back the weight. I counsel patients to view the medication as an aid and not necessarily a magic wand,” Dr. Lohr says.

Dr. Ndumele agrees. “I advocate a lifestyle-first approach,” he says. “I imagine there will be busy clinicians who will prescribe medications as a first line, but that’s not going to be our most effective approach.”

The major challenge to such an approach, he says, is that lifestyle support has to be ongoing. “It’s not the kind of thing that just happens in a yearly doctor’s visit appointment, and it’s been under-supported in most coverage and reimbursement strategies.”

In his clinical practice, which includes ongoing support for lifestyle changes, Dr. Ndumele is seeing far greater weight loss than was shown in SELECT. “I think there’s a real benefit to having the two approaches come together,” he says.

Dr. Yang also favors an emphasis on lifestyle. “The success rate of a lifestyle approach may be low, but that doesn’t change the importance of it. We need to figure out better ways to do it.” Leveraging technology is one way, he suggests, such as cellphone reminders to walk more or alerts to tell you when to sleep.

“I also encourage patients to monitor their own blood pressure, and they do.” Dr. Yang acknowledges that his patient population is highly educated with access to resources to purchase the technological devices. However, he adds, “if the clinician is negative, and doesn’t really believe these interventions will work, the patient can sense that, and then they won’t work.” It’s up to the clinician to promote the importance of these lifestyle changes in order to be successful. Is it discouraging at times? Yes. But don’t let the patient know.”

Dr. Pandey approaches the issue differently. “Our healthcare system is such that patients don’t get to see us that often, so I think we should start the lifestyle intervention, but also start the medication at the same time, in parallel, because we don’t have time to take a stepwise approach.”

“Lifestyle interventions are better received if patients see positive improvements, and the medication actually induces a positive improvement,” he says. He is concerned that if a lifestyle first approach doesn’t work “that can affect the willingness to try future therapies. And we don’t want to lose like 6 or 8 months just trying lifestyle when they could have benefited from the weight-loss medication, as well.”

Dr. Lohr, Dr. Ndumele, and Dr. Yang report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Weintraub reports being an investigator in the SELECT trial and a consultant for NovoNordisk. Dr. Pandey reports receiving research support from the National Institutes of Health; grant funding from Applied Therapeutics and Gilead Sciences; honoraria outside of the present study as an advisor/consultant for Tricog Health Inc, Lilly USA, Rivus, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, Axon therapies, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Science 37 Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Sarfez Pharmaceuticals, Emmi Solutions; and has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and serving as a consultant for Palomarin Inc. with stocks compensation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A digital stethoscope that uses artificial intelligence (AI) is better at detecting heart murmurs associated with clinically significant valvular heart disease (VHD) than is a primary care physician (PCP) using a traditional stethoscope, a new study shows.

The results suggest collecting relevant sounds through a stethoscope (auscultation) using AI-powered technology is an important primary care tool to detect VHD, study author Moshe A. Rancier, MD, medical director, Massachusetts General Brigham Community Physicians, Lawrence, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Incorporating this AI-assisted device into the primary care exam will help identify patients at risk for VHD earlier and eventually decrease costs in our healthcare system,” he said, because timely detection could avoid emergency room visits and surgeries.

The findings were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

VHD Common

Clinically significant VHD, indicating structural damage to heart valves, affects 1 in 10 adults older than 65 years. Patients may be asymptomatic or present to their PCP with an unspecific symptom like fatigue or malaise.

If VHD is undiagnosed and left untreated, patients could develop more severe symptoms, even be at risk for death, and their quality of life is significantly affected, said Dr. Rancier.

Cardiac auscultation, the current point-of-care clinical standard, has relatively low sensitivity for detecting VHD, leaving most patients undiagnosed.

The deep learning–based AI tool uses sound data to detect cardiac murmurs associated with clinically significant VHD. The device used in the study (Eko; Eko Health) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is on the market.

The tool identifies background sounds that might affect the evaluation. “If there’s any noise or breath sounds, it tells me this is not a good heart sound, and asks me to record again,” said Dr. Rancier.

A doctor using the AI-assisted stethoscope carries out the auscultation exam with the sound data captured by a smartphone or tablet and sent to the AI server. “I get an answer in a second as to if there’s a murmur or not,” said Dr. Rancier.

Not only that, but the tool can determine if it’s a systolic or diastolic murmur, he added.
 

Real-World Population

The study enrolled a “real-world” population of 368 patients, median age 70 years, 61% female, 70% White, and 18% Hispanic without a prior VHD diagnosis or history of murmur, from three primary care clinics in Queens, New York, and Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

About 79% of the cohort had hypertension, 68% had dyslipidemia, and 38% had diabetes, “which aligns with the population in the US,” said Dr. Rancier.

Each study participant had a regular exam carried out by Dr. Rancier using a traditional stethoscope to detect murmurs and an exam by a technician with a digital stethoscope that collected phonocardiogram (PCG) data for analysis by AI.

In addition, each patient received an echocardiogram 1-2 weeks later to confirm whether clinically significant VHD was present. An expert panel of cardiologists also reviewed the patient’s PCG recordings to confirm the presence of audible murmurs.

Dr. Rancier and the expert panel were blinded to AI and echocardiogram results.

Researchers calculated performance metrics for both PCP auscultation and the AI in detecting audible VHD.

The study showed that AI improved sensitivity to detect audible VHD by over twofold compared with PCP auscultation (94.1% vs 41.2%), with limited impact on specificity (84.5% vs 95.5%).

Dr. Rancier stressed the importance of sensitivity because clinicians tend to under-detect murmurs. “You don’t want to miss those patients because the consequences of undiagnosed VHD are dire.”

The AI tool identified 22 patients with moderate or greater VHD who were previously undiagnosed, whereas PCPs identified eight previously undiagnosed patients with VHD.

Dr. Rancier sees this tool being used beyond primary care, perhaps by emergency room personnel.

The authors plan to follow study participants and assess outcomes at for 6-12 months. They also aim to include more patients to increase the study’s power.
 

Expanding the Technology

They are also interested to see whether the technology can determine which valve is affected; for example, whether the issue is aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation.

A limitation of the study was its small sample size.

Commenting on the findings, Dan Roden, MD, professor of medicine, pharmacology, and biomedical informatics, senior vice president for personalized medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine, noted that it demonstrated the AI-based stethoscope “did extraordinarily well” in predicting VHD. 

“I see this as an emerging technology — using an AI-enabled stethoscope and perhaps combining it with other imaging modalities, like an AI-enabled echocardiogram built into your stethoscope,” said Dr. Roden.

“Use of these new tools to detect the presence of valvular disease, as well as the extent of valvular disease and the extent of other kinds of heart disease, will likely help to transform CVD care.” 

The study was funded by Eko Health Inc. Dr. Rancier and Dr. Roden have no relevant conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A digital stethoscope that uses artificial intelligence (AI) is better at detecting heart murmurs associated with clinically significant valvular heart disease (VHD) than is a primary care physician (PCP) using a traditional stethoscope, a new study shows.

The results suggest collecting relevant sounds through a stethoscope (auscultation) using AI-powered technology is an important primary care tool to detect VHD, study author Moshe A. Rancier, MD, medical director, Massachusetts General Brigham Community Physicians, Lawrence, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Incorporating this AI-assisted device into the primary care exam will help identify patients at risk for VHD earlier and eventually decrease costs in our healthcare system,” he said, because timely detection could avoid emergency room visits and surgeries.

The findings were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

VHD Common

Clinically significant VHD, indicating structural damage to heart valves, affects 1 in 10 adults older than 65 years. Patients may be asymptomatic or present to their PCP with an unspecific symptom like fatigue or malaise.

If VHD is undiagnosed and left untreated, patients could develop more severe symptoms, even be at risk for death, and their quality of life is significantly affected, said Dr. Rancier.

Cardiac auscultation, the current point-of-care clinical standard, has relatively low sensitivity for detecting VHD, leaving most patients undiagnosed.

The deep learning–based AI tool uses sound data to detect cardiac murmurs associated with clinically significant VHD. The device used in the study (Eko; Eko Health) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is on the market.

The tool identifies background sounds that might affect the evaluation. “If there’s any noise or breath sounds, it tells me this is not a good heart sound, and asks me to record again,” said Dr. Rancier.

A doctor using the AI-assisted stethoscope carries out the auscultation exam with the sound data captured by a smartphone or tablet and sent to the AI server. “I get an answer in a second as to if there’s a murmur or not,” said Dr. Rancier.

Not only that, but the tool can determine if it’s a systolic or diastolic murmur, he added.
 

Real-World Population

The study enrolled a “real-world” population of 368 patients, median age 70 years, 61% female, 70% White, and 18% Hispanic without a prior VHD diagnosis or history of murmur, from three primary care clinics in Queens, New York, and Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

About 79% of the cohort had hypertension, 68% had dyslipidemia, and 38% had diabetes, “which aligns with the population in the US,” said Dr. Rancier.

Each study participant had a regular exam carried out by Dr. Rancier using a traditional stethoscope to detect murmurs and an exam by a technician with a digital stethoscope that collected phonocardiogram (PCG) data for analysis by AI.

In addition, each patient received an echocardiogram 1-2 weeks later to confirm whether clinically significant VHD was present. An expert panel of cardiologists also reviewed the patient’s PCG recordings to confirm the presence of audible murmurs.

Dr. Rancier and the expert panel were blinded to AI and echocardiogram results.

Researchers calculated performance metrics for both PCP auscultation and the AI in detecting audible VHD.

The study showed that AI improved sensitivity to detect audible VHD by over twofold compared with PCP auscultation (94.1% vs 41.2%), with limited impact on specificity (84.5% vs 95.5%).

Dr. Rancier stressed the importance of sensitivity because clinicians tend to under-detect murmurs. “You don’t want to miss those patients because the consequences of undiagnosed VHD are dire.”

The AI tool identified 22 patients with moderate or greater VHD who were previously undiagnosed, whereas PCPs identified eight previously undiagnosed patients with VHD.

Dr. Rancier sees this tool being used beyond primary care, perhaps by emergency room personnel.

The authors plan to follow study participants and assess outcomes at for 6-12 months. They also aim to include more patients to increase the study’s power.
 

Expanding the Technology

They are also interested to see whether the technology can determine which valve is affected; for example, whether the issue is aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation.

A limitation of the study was its small sample size.

Commenting on the findings, Dan Roden, MD, professor of medicine, pharmacology, and biomedical informatics, senior vice president for personalized medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine, noted that it demonstrated the AI-based stethoscope “did extraordinarily well” in predicting VHD. 

“I see this as an emerging technology — using an AI-enabled stethoscope and perhaps combining it with other imaging modalities, like an AI-enabled echocardiogram built into your stethoscope,” said Dr. Roden.

“Use of these new tools to detect the presence of valvular disease, as well as the extent of valvular disease and the extent of other kinds of heart disease, will likely help to transform CVD care.” 

The study was funded by Eko Health Inc. Dr. Rancier and Dr. Roden have no relevant conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A digital stethoscope that uses artificial intelligence (AI) is better at detecting heart murmurs associated with clinically significant valvular heart disease (VHD) than is a primary care physician (PCP) using a traditional stethoscope, a new study shows.

The results suggest collecting relevant sounds through a stethoscope (auscultation) using AI-powered technology is an important primary care tool to detect VHD, study author Moshe A. Rancier, MD, medical director, Massachusetts General Brigham Community Physicians, Lawrence, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Incorporating this AI-assisted device into the primary care exam will help identify patients at risk for VHD earlier and eventually decrease costs in our healthcare system,” he said, because timely detection could avoid emergency room visits and surgeries.

The findings were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

VHD Common

Clinically significant VHD, indicating structural damage to heart valves, affects 1 in 10 adults older than 65 years. Patients may be asymptomatic or present to their PCP with an unspecific symptom like fatigue or malaise.

If VHD is undiagnosed and left untreated, patients could develop more severe symptoms, even be at risk for death, and their quality of life is significantly affected, said Dr. Rancier.

Cardiac auscultation, the current point-of-care clinical standard, has relatively low sensitivity for detecting VHD, leaving most patients undiagnosed.

The deep learning–based AI tool uses sound data to detect cardiac murmurs associated with clinically significant VHD. The device used in the study (Eko; Eko Health) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is on the market.

The tool identifies background sounds that might affect the evaluation. “If there’s any noise or breath sounds, it tells me this is not a good heart sound, and asks me to record again,” said Dr. Rancier.

A doctor using the AI-assisted stethoscope carries out the auscultation exam with the sound data captured by a smartphone or tablet and sent to the AI server. “I get an answer in a second as to if there’s a murmur or not,” said Dr. Rancier.

Not only that, but the tool can determine if it’s a systolic or diastolic murmur, he added.
 

Real-World Population

The study enrolled a “real-world” population of 368 patients, median age 70 years, 61% female, 70% White, and 18% Hispanic without a prior VHD diagnosis or history of murmur, from three primary care clinics in Queens, New York, and Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

About 79% of the cohort had hypertension, 68% had dyslipidemia, and 38% had diabetes, “which aligns with the population in the US,” said Dr. Rancier.

Each study participant had a regular exam carried out by Dr. Rancier using a traditional stethoscope to detect murmurs and an exam by a technician with a digital stethoscope that collected phonocardiogram (PCG) data for analysis by AI.

In addition, each patient received an echocardiogram 1-2 weeks later to confirm whether clinically significant VHD was present. An expert panel of cardiologists also reviewed the patient’s PCG recordings to confirm the presence of audible murmurs.

Dr. Rancier and the expert panel were blinded to AI and echocardiogram results.

Researchers calculated performance metrics for both PCP auscultation and the AI in detecting audible VHD.

The study showed that AI improved sensitivity to detect audible VHD by over twofold compared with PCP auscultation (94.1% vs 41.2%), with limited impact on specificity (84.5% vs 95.5%).

Dr. Rancier stressed the importance of sensitivity because clinicians tend to under-detect murmurs. “You don’t want to miss those patients because the consequences of undiagnosed VHD are dire.”

The AI tool identified 22 patients with moderate or greater VHD who were previously undiagnosed, whereas PCPs identified eight previously undiagnosed patients with VHD.

Dr. Rancier sees this tool being used beyond primary care, perhaps by emergency room personnel.

The authors plan to follow study participants and assess outcomes at for 6-12 months. They also aim to include more patients to increase the study’s power.
 

Expanding the Technology

They are also interested to see whether the technology can determine which valve is affected; for example, whether the issue is aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation.

A limitation of the study was its small sample size.

Commenting on the findings, Dan Roden, MD, professor of medicine, pharmacology, and biomedical informatics, senior vice president for personalized medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine, noted that it demonstrated the AI-based stethoscope “did extraordinarily well” in predicting VHD. 

“I see this as an emerging technology — using an AI-enabled stethoscope and perhaps combining it with other imaging modalities, like an AI-enabled echocardiogram built into your stethoscope,” said Dr. Roden.

“Use of these new tools to detect the presence of valvular disease, as well as the extent of valvular disease and the extent of other kinds of heart disease, will likely help to transform CVD care.” 

The study was funded by Eko Health Inc. Dr. Rancier and Dr. Roden have no relevant conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicomponent exercise program that includes strength, aerobic, agility, and balance training exercises is cost-effective and results in improved cognition among stroke survivors, compared with a balance and tone control group, according to a new analysis.

On the other hand, a program consisting of cognitive and social enrichment activities that includes memory, brain training, and group social games entailed higher costs, compared with the balance and tone group, which included stretches, deep breathing and relaxation techniques, posture education, and core control exercises.

“Cognitive impairment is experienced in approximately one-third of stroke survivors,” study author Jennifer Davis, PhD, a Canada research chair in applied health economics and assistant professor of management at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna, said in an interview.

“The economic evaluation of the exercise intervention demonstrated that the multicomponent exercise program provided good value for the money when comparing costs and cognitive outcomes,” she said. However, “impacts on health-related quality of life were not observed.”

The study was published online November 30 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Comparing Three Approaches

Despite improved care, patients with stroke often face challenges with physical function, cognitive abilities, and quality of life, the authors wrote. Among older adults, in particular, cognitive deficits remain prevalent and are associated with increased risks for dementia, mortality, and increased burdens for patients, caregivers, and health systems.

Numerous interventions have shown promise for post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation, including exercise and cognitive training, the authors wrote. Research hasn’t indicated which programs offer the most efficient or cost-effective options, however.

Dr. Davis and colleagues conducted an economic evaluation alongside the Vitality study, a three-group randomized clinical trial that examined the efficacy of improving cognitive function among patients with chronic stroke through a multicomponent exercise program, cognitive and social enrichment activities, or a control group with balance and tone activities. 

The economic evaluation team included a cost-effectiveness analysis (based on incremental cost per cognitive function change) and a cost-utility analysis (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The researchers used a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000 (Canadian dollars) per QALY for the cost-utility analysis, which was based on precedent treatment in Canada.

The clinical trial included 120 community-dwelling adults aged 55 years and older who had a stroke at least 12 months before the study. Based in the Vancouver metropolitan area, participants were randomly assigned to twice-weekly, 60-minute classes led by trained instructors for 26 weeks. The mean age was 71 years, and 62% of participants were men.

Exercise Effective

Overall, the balance and tone control group had the lowest delivery cost at CAD $777 per person, followed by CAD $1090 per person for the exercise group and CAD $1492 per person for the cognitive and social enrichment group.

After the 6-month intervention, the mean cognitive scores were –0.192 for the exercise group, –0.184 for the cognitive and social enrichment group, and –0.171 for the balance and tone group, indicating better cognitive function across all three groups.

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the exercise intervention was costlier but more effective than the control group, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD –$8823.

In the cost-utility analysis, the exercise intervention was cost saving (less costly and more effective), compared with the control group, with an ICER of CAD –$3381 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD –$154,198 per QALY gained at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. The cognitive and social enrichment program was more costly and more effective than the control group, with an ICER of CAD $101,687 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD $331,306 per QALY gained at the end of the follow-up period.

In additional analyses, the exercise group had the lowest healthcare resource utilization due to lower healthcare costs for physician visits and lab tests.

“This study provides initial data that suggests multicomponent exercise may be a cost-effective solution for combating cognitive decline among stroke survivors,” said Dr. Davis.

Overall, exercise was cost-effective for improving cognitive function but not quality of life among participants. The clinical trial was powered to detect changes in cognitive function rather than quality of life, so it lacked statistical power to detect differences in quality of life, said Dr. Davis.

Exercise programs and cognitive and social enrichment programs show promise for improving cognitive function after stroke, the authors wrote, though future research should focus on optimizing cost-effectiveness and enhancing health-related quality of life.

Considering Additional Benefits

Commenting on the study, Alan Tam, MD, a physiatrist at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s Brain Rehabilitation Program, said, “The authors show that within the timeframe of their analysis, there is a trend to cost-effectiveness for the cognitive intervention being offered.” Dr. Tam did not participate in the research.

“However, the finding is not robust, as less than 50% of their simulations would meet their acceptability level they have defined,” he said. “Given that most of the cost of the intervention is up front, but the benefits are likely lifelong, potentially taking the 12-month analysis to a lifetime analysis would show more significant findings.”

Dr. Tam researches factors associated with brain injury rehabilitation and has explored the cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity outpatient stroke rehabilitation program.

“Presenting this type of work is important,” he said. “While there are interventions that do not meet our definition of statistical significance, especially in the rehabilitation world, there can still be a benefit for patients and health systems.”

The primary study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Jack Brown and Family Alzheimer Research Foundation Society. Dr. Davis reported receiving grants from the CIHR and Michael Smith Health Research BC during the conduct of the study. Dr. Tam reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicomponent exercise program that includes strength, aerobic, agility, and balance training exercises is cost-effective and results in improved cognition among stroke survivors, compared with a balance and tone control group, according to a new analysis.

On the other hand, a program consisting of cognitive and social enrichment activities that includes memory, brain training, and group social games entailed higher costs, compared with the balance and tone group, which included stretches, deep breathing and relaxation techniques, posture education, and core control exercises.

“Cognitive impairment is experienced in approximately one-third of stroke survivors,” study author Jennifer Davis, PhD, a Canada research chair in applied health economics and assistant professor of management at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna, said in an interview.

“The economic evaluation of the exercise intervention demonstrated that the multicomponent exercise program provided good value for the money when comparing costs and cognitive outcomes,” she said. However, “impacts on health-related quality of life were not observed.”

The study was published online November 30 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Comparing Three Approaches

Despite improved care, patients with stroke often face challenges with physical function, cognitive abilities, and quality of life, the authors wrote. Among older adults, in particular, cognitive deficits remain prevalent and are associated with increased risks for dementia, mortality, and increased burdens for patients, caregivers, and health systems.

Numerous interventions have shown promise for post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation, including exercise and cognitive training, the authors wrote. Research hasn’t indicated which programs offer the most efficient or cost-effective options, however.

Dr. Davis and colleagues conducted an economic evaluation alongside the Vitality study, a three-group randomized clinical trial that examined the efficacy of improving cognitive function among patients with chronic stroke through a multicomponent exercise program, cognitive and social enrichment activities, or a control group with balance and tone activities. 

The economic evaluation team included a cost-effectiveness analysis (based on incremental cost per cognitive function change) and a cost-utility analysis (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The researchers used a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000 (Canadian dollars) per QALY for the cost-utility analysis, which was based on precedent treatment in Canada.

The clinical trial included 120 community-dwelling adults aged 55 years and older who had a stroke at least 12 months before the study. Based in the Vancouver metropolitan area, participants were randomly assigned to twice-weekly, 60-minute classes led by trained instructors for 26 weeks. The mean age was 71 years, and 62% of participants were men.

Exercise Effective

Overall, the balance and tone control group had the lowest delivery cost at CAD $777 per person, followed by CAD $1090 per person for the exercise group and CAD $1492 per person for the cognitive and social enrichment group.

After the 6-month intervention, the mean cognitive scores were –0.192 for the exercise group, –0.184 for the cognitive and social enrichment group, and –0.171 for the balance and tone group, indicating better cognitive function across all three groups.

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the exercise intervention was costlier but more effective than the control group, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD –$8823.

In the cost-utility analysis, the exercise intervention was cost saving (less costly and more effective), compared with the control group, with an ICER of CAD –$3381 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD –$154,198 per QALY gained at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. The cognitive and social enrichment program was more costly and more effective than the control group, with an ICER of CAD $101,687 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD $331,306 per QALY gained at the end of the follow-up period.

In additional analyses, the exercise group had the lowest healthcare resource utilization due to lower healthcare costs for physician visits and lab tests.

“This study provides initial data that suggests multicomponent exercise may be a cost-effective solution for combating cognitive decline among stroke survivors,” said Dr. Davis.

Overall, exercise was cost-effective for improving cognitive function but not quality of life among participants. The clinical trial was powered to detect changes in cognitive function rather than quality of life, so it lacked statistical power to detect differences in quality of life, said Dr. Davis.

Exercise programs and cognitive and social enrichment programs show promise for improving cognitive function after stroke, the authors wrote, though future research should focus on optimizing cost-effectiveness and enhancing health-related quality of life.

Considering Additional Benefits

Commenting on the study, Alan Tam, MD, a physiatrist at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s Brain Rehabilitation Program, said, “The authors show that within the timeframe of their analysis, there is a trend to cost-effectiveness for the cognitive intervention being offered.” Dr. Tam did not participate in the research.

“However, the finding is not robust, as less than 50% of their simulations would meet their acceptability level they have defined,” he said. “Given that most of the cost of the intervention is up front, but the benefits are likely lifelong, potentially taking the 12-month analysis to a lifetime analysis would show more significant findings.”

Dr. Tam researches factors associated with brain injury rehabilitation and has explored the cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity outpatient stroke rehabilitation program.

“Presenting this type of work is important,” he said. “While there are interventions that do not meet our definition of statistical significance, especially in the rehabilitation world, there can still be a benefit for patients and health systems.”

The primary study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Jack Brown and Family Alzheimer Research Foundation Society. Dr. Davis reported receiving grants from the CIHR and Michael Smith Health Research BC during the conduct of the study. Dr. Tam reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicomponent exercise program that includes strength, aerobic, agility, and balance training exercises is cost-effective and results in improved cognition among stroke survivors, compared with a balance and tone control group, according to a new analysis.

On the other hand, a program consisting of cognitive and social enrichment activities that includes memory, brain training, and group social games entailed higher costs, compared with the balance and tone group, which included stretches, deep breathing and relaxation techniques, posture education, and core control exercises.

“Cognitive impairment is experienced in approximately one-third of stroke survivors,” study author Jennifer Davis, PhD, a Canada research chair in applied health economics and assistant professor of management at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna, said in an interview.

“The economic evaluation of the exercise intervention demonstrated that the multicomponent exercise program provided good value for the money when comparing costs and cognitive outcomes,” she said. However, “impacts on health-related quality of life were not observed.”

The study was published online November 30 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Comparing Three Approaches

Despite improved care, patients with stroke often face challenges with physical function, cognitive abilities, and quality of life, the authors wrote. Among older adults, in particular, cognitive deficits remain prevalent and are associated with increased risks for dementia, mortality, and increased burdens for patients, caregivers, and health systems.

Numerous interventions have shown promise for post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation, including exercise and cognitive training, the authors wrote. Research hasn’t indicated which programs offer the most efficient or cost-effective options, however.

Dr. Davis and colleagues conducted an economic evaluation alongside the Vitality study, a three-group randomized clinical trial that examined the efficacy of improving cognitive function among patients with chronic stroke through a multicomponent exercise program, cognitive and social enrichment activities, or a control group with balance and tone activities. 

The economic evaluation team included a cost-effectiveness analysis (based on incremental cost per cognitive function change) and a cost-utility analysis (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The researchers used a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000 (Canadian dollars) per QALY for the cost-utility analysis, which was based on precedent treatment in Canada.

The clinical trial included 120 community-dwelling adults aged 55 years and older who had a stroke at least 12 months before the study. Based in the Vancouver metropolitan area, participants were randomly assigned to twice-weekly, 60-minute classes led by trained instructors for 26 weeks. The mean age was 71 years, and 62% of participants were men.

Exercise Effective

Overall, the balance and tone control group had the lowest delivery cost at CAD $777 per person, followed by CAD $1090 per person for the exercise group and CAD $1492 per person for the cognitive and social enrichment group.

After the 6-month intervention, the mean cognitive scores were –0.192 for the exercise group, –0.184 for the cognitive and social enrichment group, and –0.171 for the balance and tone group, indicating better cognitive function across all three groups.

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the exercise intervention was costlier but more effective than the control group, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD –$8823.

In the cost-utility analysis, the exercise intervention was cost saving (less costly and more effective), compared with the control group, with an ICER of CAD –$3381 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD –$154,198 per QALY gained at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. The cognitive and social enrichment program was more costly and more effective than the control group, with an ICER of CAD $101,687 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD $331,306 per QALY gained at the end of the follow-up period.

In additional analyses, the exercise group had the lowest healthcare resource utilization due to lower healthcare costs for physician visits and lab tests.

“This study provides initial data that suggests multicomponent exercise may be a cost-effective solution for combating cognitive decline among stroke survivors,” said Dr. Davis.

Overall, exercise was cost-effective for improving cognitive function but not quality of life among participants. The clinical trial was powered to detect changes in cognitive function rather than quality of life, so it lacked statistical power to detect differences in quality of life, said Dr. Davis.

Exercise programs and cognitive and social enrichment programs show promise for improving cognitive function after stroke, the authors wrote, though future research should focus on optimizing cost-effectiveness and enhancing health-related quality of life.

Considering Additional Benefits

Commenting on the study, Alan Tam, MD, a physiatrist at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s Brain Rehabilitation Program, said, “The authors show that within the timeframe of their analysis, there is a trend to cost-effectiveness for the cognitive intervention being offered.” Dr. Tam did not participate in the research.

“However, the finding is not robust, as less than 50% of their simulations would meet their acceptability level they have defined,” he said. “Given that most of the cost of the intervention is up front, but the benefits are likely lifelong, potentially taking the 12-month analysis to a lifetime analysis would show more significant findings.”

Dr. Tam researches factors associated with brain injury rehabilitation and has explored the cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity outpatient stroke rehabilitation program.

“Presenting this type of work is important,” he said. “While there are interventions that do not meet our definition of statistical significance, especially in the rehabilitation world, there can still be a benefit for patients and health systems.”

The primary study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Jack Brown and Family Alzheimer Research Foundation Society. Dr. Davis reported receiving grants from the CIHR and Michael Smith Health Research BC during the conduct of the study. Dr. Tam reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at Arturo.AI.MedTech@gmail.com.
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at Arturo.AI.MedTech@gmail.com.
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at Arturo.AI.MedTech@gmail.com.
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults diagnosed with coronary heart disease (CHD) are at an increased risk for dementia, including all-cause dementia, Alzheimer›s disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VD), with the risk highest — at 36% — if onset is before age 45, results of a large observational study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 432,667 of the more than 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank, with a mean age of 56.9 years, 50,685 (11.7%) of whom had CHD and 50,445 had data on age at CHD onset.
• Researchers divided participants into three groups according to age at CHD onset (below 45 years, 45-59 years, and 60 years and older), and carried out a propensity score matching analysis.
• Outcomes included all-cause dementia, AD, and VD.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, educational level, body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, smoking status, alcohol intake, exercise, depressed mood, hypertension, diabetes, statin use, and apolipoprotein E4 status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 12.8 years, researchers identified 5876 cases of all-cause dementia, 2540 cases of AD, and 1220 cases of VD.
• Fully adjusted models showed participants with CHD had significantly higher risks than those without CHD of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.28-1.45; P < .001), AD (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24; P = .019), and VD (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02; P < .001). The higher risk for VD suggests CHD has a more profound influence on neuropathologic changes involved in this dementia type, said the authors.
• Those with CHD diagnosed at a younger age had higher risks of developing dementia (HR per 10-year decrease in age, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.20-1.30 for all-cause dementia, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.38 for AD, and 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31 for VD; P for all < .001).
• Propensity score matching analysis showed patients with CHD had significantly higher risks for dementia compared with matched controls, with the highest risk seen in patients diagnosed before age 45 (HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.79-3.20; P < .001), followed by those diagnosed between 45 and 59 years (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32-1.62; P < .001) and at or above 60 years (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .005), with similar results for AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest “additional attention should be paid to the cognitive status of patients with CHD, especially the ones diagnosed with CHD at a young age,” the authors conclude, noting that “timely intervention, such as cognitive training, could be implemented once signs of cognitive deteriorations are detected.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jie Liang, BS, School of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, and colleagues. It was published online on November 29, 2023, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

LIMITATIONS:

As this is an observational study, it can’t conclude a causal relationship. Although the authors adjusted for many potential confounders, unknown risk factors that also contribute to CHD can’t be ruled out. As the study excluded 69,744 participants, selection bias is possible. The study included a mostly White population.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Non-Profit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the China Medical Board. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults diagnosed with coronary heart disease (CHD) are at an increased risk for dementia, including all-cause dementia, Alzheimer›s disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VD), with the risk highest — at 36% — if onset is before age 45, results of a large observational study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 432,667 of the more than 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank, with a mean age of 56.9 years, 50,685 (11.7%) of whom had CHD and 50,445 had data on age at CHD onset.
• Researchers divided participants into three groups according to age at CHD onset (below 45 years, 45-59 years, and 60 years and older), and carried out a propensity score matching analysis.
• Outcomes included all-cause dementia, AD, and VD.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, educational level, body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, smoking status, alcohol intake, exercise, depressed mood, hypertension, diabetes, statin use, and apolipoprotein E4 status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 12.8 years, researchers identified 5876 cases of all-cause dementia, 2540 cases of AD, and 1220 cases of VD.
• Fully adjusted models showed participants with CHD had significantly higher risks than those without CHD of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.28-1.45; P < .001), AD (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24; P = .019), and VD (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02; P < .001). The higher risk for VD suggests CHD has a more profound influence on neuropathologic changes involved in this dementia type, said the authors.
• Those with CHD diagnosed at a younger age had higher risks of developing dementia (HR per 10-year decrease in age, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.20-1.30 for all-cause dementia, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.38 for AD, and 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31 for VD; P for all < .001).
• Propensity score matching analysis showed patients with CHD had significantly higher risks for dementia compared with matched controls, with the highest risk seen in patients diagnosed before age 45 (HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.79-3.20; P < .001), followed by those diagnosed between 45 and 59 years (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32-1.62; P < .001) and at or above 60 years (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .005), with similar results for AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest “additional attention should be paid to the cognitive status of patients with CHD, especially the ones diagnosed with CHD at a young age,” the authors conclude, noting that “timely intervention, such as cognitive training, could be implemented once signs of cognitive deteriorations are detected.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jie Liang, BS, School of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, and colleagues. It was published online on November 29, 2023, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

LIMITATIONS:

As this is an observational study, it can’t conclude a causal relationship. Although the authors adjusted for many potential confounders, unknown risk factors that also contribute to CHD can’t be ruled out. As the study excluded 69,744 participants, selection bias is possible. The study included a mostly White population.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Non-Profit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the China Medical Board. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults diagnosed with coronary heart disease (CHD) are at an increased risk for dementia, including all-cause dementia, Alzheimer›s disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VD), with the risk highest — at 36% — if onset is before age 45, results of a large observational study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 432,667 of the more than 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank, with a mean age of 56.9 years, 50,685 (11.7%) of whom had CHD and 50,445 had data on age at CHD onset.
• Researchers divided participants into three groups according to age at CHD onset (below 45 years, 45-59 years, and 60 years and older), and carried out a propensity score matching analysis.
• Outcomes included all-cause dementia, AD, and VD.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, educational level, body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, smoking status, alcohol intake, exercise, depressed mood, hypertension, diabetes, statin use, and apolipoprotein E4 status.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 12.8 years, researchers identified 5876 cases of all-cause dementia, 2540 cases of AD, and 1220 cases of VD.
• Fully adjusted models showed participants with CHD had significantly higher risks than those without CHD of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.28-1.45; P < .001), AD (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24; P = .019), and VD (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02; P < .001). The higher risk for VD suggests CHD has a more profound influence on neuropathologic changes involved in this dementia type, said the authors.
• Those with CHD diagnosed at a younger age had higher risks of developing dementia (HR per 10-year decrease in age, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.20-1.30 for all-cause dementia, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.38 for AD, and 1.22; 95% CI, 1.13-1.31 for VD; P for all < .001).
• Propensity score matching analysis showed patients with CHD had significantly higher risks for dementia compared with matched controls, with the highest risk seen in patients diagnosed before age 45 (HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.79-3.20; P < .001), followed by those diagnosed between 45 and 59 years (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.32-1.62; P < .001) and at or above 60 years (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .005), with similar results for AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest “additional attention should be paid to the cognitive status of patients with CHD, especially the ones diagnosed with CHD at a young age,” the authors conclude, noting that “timely intervention, such as cognitive training, could be implemented once signs of cognitive deteriorations are detected.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jie Liang, BS, School of Nursing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, and colleagues. It was published online on November 29, 2023, in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

LIMITATIONS:

As this is an observational study, it can’t conclude a causal relationship. Although the authors adjusted for many potential confounders, unknown risk factors that also contribute to CHD can’t be ruled out. As the study excluded 69,744 participants, selection bias is possible. The study included a mostly White population.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Non-Profit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the China Medical Board. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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