Cardiology News

Brain disorders, including mental illness, neurologic conditions, and stroke, account for more than 15% of all health loss worldwide – more than either cardiovascular disease or cancer – at huge cost to health care systems and society, an analysis of data from the most recent Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study shows.

“The burden of brain conditions will increase as populations continue to grow and age,” said study presenter Shayla Smith, MPH, an epidemiologist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the University of Washington, Seattle, in a press release.

“By 2050, more than 50 million people will be aged 65-79,” she explained, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic “has also influenced the prevalence of mental disorders globally, as people were forced to isolate and social networks broke down.”

Other factors related to brain disorders, she noted, include education level, obesity, and smoking.

“There’s still research to be done on what is the most effective way to maintain brain health, but some literature suggests a healthy brain can be achieved through a healthy lifestyle of managing conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes, limiting alcohol consumption and smoking, prioritizing sleep, eating healthy, and staying physically and mentally active,” said Ms. Smith.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

An ‘ambitious exercise’

Coinvestigator Xaviera Steele, also from the IHME, told press conference attendees that the institute was established at the University of Washington in 2007 with the aim of “standardizing the measurement of health outcomes around the world and for all health conditions.”

A central part of that is the GBD study, “which is a very ambitious exercise in descriptive epidemiology in an effort to systematically quantify health loss” due to disease, injury, and risk factors over time, stratified by country, region, age, and sex. In addition, researchers are mapping and projecting trends over the next century and are estimating disease expenditure by country, by type of expense, and by condition “to derive a health care access and quality score for each health system in the world,” Ms. Steele said.

They are also estimating exposure to risk factors, how those risk factors contribute to health burden, and associated health outcomes by race and ethnicity to reflect the “disparities that we know are very prevalent in countries such as the United States.” From that work, Ms. Steele said that brain health and related conditions “do emerge as one of the more pressing challenges of the 21st century.”
 

Increase in dementia, mental health conditions

The data, which were gathered from 200,000 sources by the IHME, indicate that the number of individuals aged 65 years or older will increase by 350% by 2100. Ms. Steele underlined that “policy action will be needed to help families, who will struggle to provide high-quality care for their loved ones with dementia at a reasonable cost.”

The IHME calculates that in Europe health care spending on Alzheimer’s disease will increase by 226% between 2015 and 2040.

Turning to other conditions, Ms. Steele showed that since 1990, the number of individuals living with anxiety in the European region has increased by 14%, while the number living with depressive disorders has gone up by 13%.

Worldwide, the figures are even starker. Depression is estimated to affect 300 million people across the globe, which represents a 71% increase since 1990. The number of strokes increased by 95% over the same period.

Nevertheless, the “impact of brain conditions such as stroke has decreased since the 1990s due to improved treatments available,” Ms. Smith noted in the press release.

To estimate the toll caused by brain conditions, including neurologic disorders, mental disorders, cerebrovascular disease, brain cancer, brain injuries, and select infectious conditions, the researchers calculated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

This, Ms. Smith explained in her presentation, “captures the morbidity and mortality associated with brain conditions” and is adjusted for patient location, age, and sex.

The investigators found that, globally, brain conditions accounted for more than 15% of all health loss in 2021, at 406 DALYs – more than the 206 million DALYs that were associated with cancer, and the 402 million that were linked to cardiovascular disease.

This health loss is associated with a $1.22 trillion loss in income for people living with health disorders worldwide and accounts for $1.14 trillion in direct health care costs.

The burden of mental disorders, neurologic conditions, and stroke is expected to increase dramatically between now and 2050, said Ms. Smith, who noted that health loss linked to brain conditions is higher in younger patients. This will create “new challenges for health systems, employers, patients, and families,” she said in the press release.

“Our goal is to see an improved prevention and treatment landscape for other brain conditions and reverse the growing health loss that we are currently forecasting.”
 

Worrying increase in stroke

Jurgita Valaikiene, MD, PhD, center of neurology, clinic of neurology and neurosurgery, Vilnius (Lithuania) University Faculty of Medicine, who chaired the session, was taken aback by the findings, particularly by the worldwide increase in stroke cases.

“I work in stroke,” she said, and “we spend a lot of time on the diagnosis of stroke” and its prevention. “We try to be faster, to catch asymptomatic stenosis in the neck or head, and to apply the best medical treatment to avoid a stroke. But despite that, the numbers are increasing. I understand the population is getting older ... but still it’s a huge number.”

Dr. Valaikiene pointed out that stroke is not necessarily a condition of aging, insofar as increasing age “is not related directly to stenosis in the neck. “For example, we can have healthier vessels in older age and unhealthy vessels, with high-grade stenosis, in someone aged 30 or 40 years.”

“There are a lot of risk factors, such as smoking, physical activity, and so on. It depends on the individual,” she added.

The study was funded by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain disorders, including mental illness, neurologic conditions, and stroke, account for more than 15% of all health loss worldwide – more than either cardiovascular disease or cancer – at huge cost to health care systems and society, an analysis of data from the most recent Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study shows.

“The burden of brain conditions will increase as populations continue to grow and age,” said study presenter Shayla Smith, MPH, an epidemiologist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the University of Washington, Seattle, in a press release.

“By 2050, more than 50 million people will be aged 65-79,” she explained, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic “has also influenced the prevalence of mental disorders globally, as people were forced to isolate and social networks broke down.”

Other factors related to brain disorders, she noted, include education level, obesity, and smoking.

“There’s still research to be done on what is the most effective way to maintain brain health, but some literature suggests a healthy brain can be achieved through a healthy lifestyle of managing conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes, limiting alcohol consumption and smoking, prioritizing sleep, eating healthy, and staying physically and mentally active,” said Ms. Smith.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

An ‘ambitious exercise’

Coinvestigator Xaviera Steele, also from the IHME, told press conference attendees that the institute was established at the University of Washington in 2007 with the aim of “standardizing the measurement of health outcomes around the world and for all health conditions.”

A central part of that is the GBD study, “which is a very ambitious exercise in descriptive epidemiology in an effort to systematically quantify health loss” due to disease, injury, and risk factors over time, stratified by country, region, age, and sex. In addition, researchers are mapping and projecting trends over the next century and are estimating disease expenditure by country, by type of expense, and by condition “to derive a health care access and quality score for each health system in the world,” Ms. Steele said.

They are also estimating exposure to risk factors, how those risk factors contribute to health burden, and associated health outcomes by race and ethnicity to reflect the “disparities that we know are very prevalent in countries such as the United States.” From that work, Ms. Steele said that brain health and related conditions “do emerge as one of the more pressing challenges of the 21st century.”
 

Increase in dementia, mental health conditions

The data, which were gathered from 200,000 sources by the IHME, indicate that the number of individuals aged 65 years or older will increase by 350% by 2100. Ms. Steele underlined that “policy action will be needed to help families, who will struggle to provide high-quality care for their loved ones with dementia at a reasonable cost.”

The IHME calculates that in Europe health care spending on Alzheimer’s disease will increase by 226% between 2015 and 2040.

Turning to other conditions, Ms. Steele showed that since 1990, the number of individuals living with anxiety in the European region has increased by 14%, while the number living with depressive disorders has gone up by 13%.

Worldwide, the figures are even starker. Depression is estimated to affect 300 million people across the globe, which represents a 71% increase since 1990. The number of strokes increased by 95% over the same period.

Nevertheless, the “impact of brain conditions such as stroke has decreased since the 1990s due to improved treatments available,” Ms. Smith noted in the press release.

To estimate the toll caused by brain conditions, including neurologic disorders, mental disorders, cerebrovascular disease, brain cancer, brain injuries, and select infectious conditions, the researchers calculated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

This, Ms. Smith explained in her presentation, “captures the morbidity and mortality associated with brain conditions” and is adjusted for patient location, age, and sex.

The investigators found that, globally, brain conditions accounted for more than 15% of all health loss in 2021, at 406 DALYs – more than the 206 million DALYs that were associated with cancer, and the 402 million that were linked to cardiovascular disease.

This health loss is associated with a $1.22 trillion loss in income for people living with health disorders worldwide and accounts for $1.14 trillion in direct health care costs.

The burden of mental disorders, neurologic conditions, and stroke is expected to increase dramatically between now and 2050, said Ms. Smith, who noted that health loss linked to brain conditions is higher in younger patients. This will create “new challenges for health systems, employers, patients, and families,” she said in the press release.

“Our goal is to see an improved prevention and treatment landscape for other brain conditions and reverse the growing health loss that we are currently forecasting.”
 

Worrying increase in stroke

Jurgita Valaikiene, MD, PhD, center of neurology, clinic of neurology and neurosurgery, Vilnius (Lithuania) University Faculty of Medicine, who chaired the session, was taken aback by the findings, particularly by the worldwide increase in stroke cases.

“I work in stroke,” she said, and “we spend a lot of time on the diagnosis of stroke” and its prevention. “We try to be faster, to catch asymptomatic stenosis in the neck or head, and to apply the best medical treatment to avoid a stroke. But despite that, the numbers are increasing. I understand the population is getting older ... but still it’s a huge number.”

Dr. Valaikiene pointed out that stroke is not necessarily a condition of aging, insofar as increasing age “is not related directly to stenosis in the neck. “For example, we can have healthier vessels in older age and unhealthy vessels, with high-grade stenosis, in someone aged 30 or 40 years.”

“There are a lot of risk factors, such as smoking, physical activity, and so on. It depends on the individual,” she added.

The study was funded by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain disorders, including mental illness, neurologic conditions, and stroke, account for more than 15% of all health loss worldwide – more than either cardiovascular disease or cancer – at huge cost to health care systems and society, an analysis of data from the most recent Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study shows.

“The burden of brain conditions will increase as populations continue to grow and age,” said study presenter Shayla Smith, MPH, an epidemiologist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the University of Washington, Seattle, in a press release.

“By 2050, more than 50 million people will be aged 65-79,” she explained, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic “has also influenced the prevalence of mental disorders globally, as people were forced to isolate and social networks broke down.”

Other factors related to brain disorders, she noted, include education level, obesity, and smoking.

“There’s still research to be done on what is the most effective way to maintain brain health, but some literature suggests a healthy brain can be achieved through a healthy lifestyle of managing conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes, limiting alcohol consumption and smoking, prioritizing sleep, eating healthy, and staying physically and mentally active,” said Ms. Smith.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

An ‘ambitious exercise’

Coinvestigator Xaviera Steele, also from the IHME, told press conference attendees that the institute was established at the University of Washington in 2007 with the aim of “standardizing the measurement of health outcomes around the world and for all health conditions.”

A central part of that is the GBD study, “which is a very ambitious exercise in descriptive epidemiology in an effort to systematically quantify health loss” due to disease, injury, and risk factors over time, stratified by country, region, age, and sex. In addition, researchers are mapping and projecting trends over the next century and are estimating disease expenditure by country, by type of expense, and by condition “to derive a health care access and quality score for each health system in the world,” Ms. Steele said.

They are also estimating exposure to risk factors, how those risk factors contribute to health burden, and associated health outcomes by race and ethnicity to reflect the “disparities that we know are very prevalent in countries such as the United States.” From that work, Ms. Steele said that brain health and related conditions “do emerge as one of the more pressing challenges of the 21st century.”
 

Increase in dementia, mental health conditions

The data, which were gathered from 200,000 sources by the IHME, indicate that the number of individuals aged 65 years or older will increase by 350% by 2100. Ms. Steele underlined that “policy action will be needed to help families, who will struggle to provide high-quality care for their loved ones with dementia at a reasonable cost.”

The IHME calculates that in Europe health care spending on Alzheimer’s disease will increase by 226% between 2015 and 2040.

Turning to other conditions, Ms. Steele showed that since 1990, the number of individuals living with anxiety in the European region has increased by 14%, while the number living with depressive disorders has gone up by 13%.

Worldwide, the figures are even starker. Depression is estimated to affect 300 million people across the globe, which represents a 71% increase since 1990. The number of strokes increased by 95% over the same period.

Nevertheless, the “impact of brain conditions such as stroke has decreased since the 1990s due to improved treatments available,” Ms. Smith noted in the press release.

To estimate the toll caused by brain conditions, including neurologic disorders, mental disorders, cerebrovascular disease, brain cancer, brain injuries, and select infectious conditions, the researchers calculated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

This, Ms. Smith explained in her presentation, “captures the morbidity and mortality associated with brain conditions” and is adjusted for patient location, age, and sex.

The investigators found that, globally, brain conditions accounted for more than 15% of all health loss in 2021, at 406 DALYs – more than the 206 million DALYs that were associated with cancer, and the 402 million that were linked to cardiovascular disease.

This health loss is associated with a $1.22 trillion loss in income for people living with health disorders worldwide and accounts for $1.14 trillion in direct health care costs.

The burden of mental disorders, neurologic conditions, and stroke is expected to increase dramatically between now and 2050, said Ms. Smith, who noted that health loss linked to brain conditions is higher in younger patients. This will create “new challenges for health systems, employers, patients, and families,” she said in the press release.

“Our goal is to see an improved prevention and treatment landscape for other brain conditions and reverse the growing health loss that we are currently forecasting.”
 

Worrying increase in stroke

Jurgita Valaikiene, MD, PhD, center of neurology, clinic of neurology and neurosurgery, Vilnius (Lithuania) University Faculty of Medicine, who chaired the session, was taken aback by the findings, particularly by the worldwide increase in stroke cases.

“I work in stroke,” she said, and “we spend a lot of time on the diagnosis of stroke” and its prevention. “We try to be faster, to catch asymptomatic stenosis in the neck or head, and to apply the best medical treatment to avoid a stroke. But despite that, the numbers are increasing. I understand the population is getting older ... but still it’s a huge number.”

Dr. Valaikiene pointed out that stroke is not necessarily a condition of aging, insofar as increasing age “is not related directly to stenosis in the neck. “For example, we can have healthier vessels in older age and unhealthy vessels, with high-grade stenosis, in someone aged 30 or 40 years.”

“There are a lot of risk factors, such as smoking, physical activity, and so on. It depends on the individual,” she added.

The study was funded by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has determined that paclitaxel-delivering stents and balloons for peripheral-artery interventions do not pose an excess mortality risk, the agency July 11 in a statement to health care providers.

The FDA announcement comes about 4 years after it warned physicians of a “potentially concerning” signal of excess mortality linked to paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel-eluting stents in published analysis.

The agency’s concerns had been based on a December 2018 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Heart Association that saw a 68% jump in mortality risk at 2 years and a 93% excess risk at 5 years associated with the paclitaxel devices in the periphery.

The findings, which led an FDA advisory committee to recommend device labeling changes and otherwise upended the practice of peripheral interventions, were followed by an FDA recommendation to limit the use of paclitaxel devices in the periphery to higher-risk cases.

In its July 11 update to providers, the FDA said it was satisfied the devices do not pose an excess mortality risk. It based its conclusion on extensive further evidence review and recently available “additional data” from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contributing to the meta-analysis that had ignited the controversy.

“FDA clinicians and statisticians reviewed the study data,” the agency said, “and concluded that the updated RCT meta-analysis does not indicate that the use of paclitaxel-coated devices is associated with a late mortality risk.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has determined that paclitaxel-delivering stents and balloons for peripheral-artery interventions do not pose an excess mortality risk, the agency July 11 in a statement to health care providers.

The FDA announcement comes about 4 years after it warned physicians of a “potentially concerning” signal of excess mortality linked to paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel-eluting stents in published analysis.

The agency’s concerns had been based on a December 2018 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Heart Association that saw a 68% jump in mortality risk at 2 years and a 93% excess risk at 5 years associated with the paclitaxel devices in the periphery.

The findings, which led an FDA advisory committee to recommend device labeling changes and otherwise upended the practice of peripheral interventions, were followed by an FDA recommendation to limit the use of paclitaxel devices in the periphery to higher-risk cases.

In its July 11 update to providers, the FDA said it was satisfied the devices do not pose an excess mortality risk. It based its conclusion on extensive further evidence review and recently available “additional data” from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contributing to the meta-analysis that had ignited the controversy.

“FDA clinicians and statisticians reviewed the study data,” the agency said, “and concluded that the updated RCT meta-analysis does not indicate that the use of paclitaxel-coated devices is associated with a late mortality risk.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has determined that paclitaxel-delivering stents and balloons for peripheral-artery interventions do not pose an excess mortality risk, the agency July 11 in a statement to health care providers.

The FDA announcement comes about 4 years after it warned physicians of a “potentially concerning” signal of excess mortality linked to paclitaxel-coated balloons and paclitaxel-eluting stents in published analysis.

The agency’s concerns had been based on a December 2018 meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Heart Association that saw a 68% jump in mortality risk at 2 years and a 93% excess risk at 5 years associated with the paclitaxel devices in the periphery.

The findings, which led an FDA advisory committee to recommend device labeling changes and otherwise upended the practice of peripheral interventions, were followed by an FDA recommendation to limit the use of paclitaxel devices in the periphery to higher-risk cases.

In its July 11 update to providers, the FDA said it was satisfied the devices do not pose an excess mortality risk. It based its conclusion on extensive further evidence review and recently available “additional data” from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) contributing to the meta-analysis that had ignited the controversy.

“FDA clinicians and statisticians reviewed the study data,” the agency said, “and concluded that the updated RCT meta-analysis does not indicate that the use of paclitaxel-coated devices is associated with a late mortality risk.”

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

Diets containing higher amounts of certain food categories appear to be protective against cardiovascular (CV) disease and premature death, suggests a new study with a broad international scope. Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.

A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.

Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.

Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.

“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.

“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”

The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
 

Healthy diet score

PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.

The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.

There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:

• Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
• MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
• Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).

The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.

In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:

• Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
• MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).

In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:

• MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
• Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).

In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.

The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:

• Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
• MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
• Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
• Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).

“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”

Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”

Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”

Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
 

Common human biology

The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”

Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”

Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
 

Not automatically superior

“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.

“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”

The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”

Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.

The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets containing higher amounts of certain food categories appear to be protective against cardiovascular (CV) disease and premature death, suggests a new study with a broad international scope. Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.

A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.

Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.

Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.

“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.

“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”

The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
 

Healthy diet score

PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.

The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.

There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:

• Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
• MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
• Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).

The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.

In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:

• Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
• MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).

In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:

• MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
• Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).

In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.

The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:

• Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
• MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
• Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
• Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).

“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”

Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”

Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”

Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
 

Common human biology

The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”

Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”

Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
 

Not automatically superior

“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.

“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”

The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”

Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.

The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets containing higher amounts of certain food categories appear to be protective against cardiovascular (CV) disease and premature death, suggests a new study with a broad international scope. Most of the protective food categories are in line with standard dietary guidelines for good health, but one that may be heart-protective is not usually included in such recommendations.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

The food categories that were found to be protective include fruit, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish but also dairy, “mainly whole-fat,” in an analysis based on the international Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study and data from five other international trials that encompassed more than 240,000 people.

A healthy diet scoring system was derived from dietary patterns and clinical events observed in the PURE study and was applied to the populations of the other trials. Higher scores, corresponding to greater consumption of the six food categories, tracked with significantly reduced risks for death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke.

Reductions in mortality and CV-disease risk that were linked to the higher scores were especially pronounced in lower-income countries in the study published onlinein the European Heart Journal with lead author Andrew Mente, PhD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The study in part refutes the frequent preference for low-fat or no-fat dairy foods over whole-fat dairy in healthy-diet recommendations. But it is consistent with earlier findings from PURE of reduced mortality risk with increased consumption of dietary fat, including saturated fat.

Whereas healthy-diet recommendations tend to emphasize reduced intake of fat, especially saturated fat, the report notes that “there are almost no national or international strategies and policies to increase a number of protective foods,” such as nuts, fish, and dairy.

“Therefore, while the findings from PURE are largely consistent with the nutrition science and modern dietary recommendations to focus on protective foods, the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies have not yet caught up to this science,” it states.

“Guidelines and policy actions need to be updated with this newer evidence,” Dr. Mente said in an interview. “For example, the World Health Organization remains mainly focused on reducing certain nutrients, such as fat, saturated fat, added sugar, and salt,” he said. “These recommendations are echoed by government policy actions and industry, as evident by the continued focus on the usual nutrients in food labels of many countries.”

The current findings, Dr. Mente said, “can be used to ensure that the public’s understanding of healthy eating and relevant global policies are able to catch up to the science.”
 

Healthy diet score

PURE investigators developed their healthy diet score using data from 147,642 people from the general population in 21 countries. The investigators compared self-reported dietary intakes with long-term clinical outcomes.

The scoring system assigned a value of 1 for each of the six health-food categories when individuals’ intake exceeded the entire cohort’s median intake. It assigned a 0 when intake was below the median. The total PURE healthy diet score consisted of the sum of the six values, with higher scores corresponding to a healthier diet. The mean score for cohort was 2.95.

There were 15,707 deaths and 40,764 CV events during a median follow-up of 9.3 years. A score of at least 5 points, compared with 0 or 1 point, was associated with significantly reduced hazard ratios for mortality, MI, and stroke in multivariable analysis:

• Mortality: HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.77; P < .0001).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P < .0001).
• MI: HR, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .0014).
• Stroke: HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .0034).

The healthy diet score’s relationship to clinical outcomes was explored in five other large independent studies, including three prospective trials of patients with CV disease that spanned 50 countries, a case-control study with MI patients in 52 countries, and a case-control study with stroke patients in 33 countries.

In the three prospective trials, higher scores were associated with reduced mortality, CV disease events, and MI:

• Mortality: HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
• MI: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99).

In the two case-control studies, a higher diet score was associated with reduced odds ratios for first MI and for stroke:

• MI: OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.80).
• Stroke: OR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.65).

In an analysis based on the PURE cohort, incorporation of unprocessed red meat or whole grains into the health diet score produced similar results, suggesting that a “modest amount” of meat or whole grains can be part of a healthy diet, the authors contend.

The results were similar in a combined analysis of all the prospective studies. In particular, improvement in diet score by one quintile was associated with significantly reduced risks for the following:

• Mortality: HR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.93).
• Major CV disease: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.95).
• MI: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96).
• Stroke: HR, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99).
• Death or CV disease: HR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94).

“This strongly indicates that the take-home message for patients is the same as for general populations,” Dr. Mente said. “Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and a moderate amount of fish and whole-fat dairy to lower risk of CV disease and mortality.”

Dairy foods are not widely consumed in some cultures, he said, “but availability and cost are also factors in determining consumption.” Nonetheless, a high-quality diet can be achieved without including or excluding dairy foods. Context-specific policies and priorities are needed for different populations, “rather than a one-size-fits-all global policy.”

Food labels in many countries mainly focus on “reducing certain nutrients as the end-all, be-all,” Dr. Mente observed. “Our findings can be used as a basis for recommendations regarding what a healthy diet should be globally and then modified for each region based on the specific types of foods that are available and affordable in each region.”

Moreover, he said, “targeted food policies are needed to increase the availability and affordability of healthy foods, especially in lower-income countries where intakes are low.”
 

Common human biology

The current results from PURE “confirm prior observations from mostly Western nations that low intakes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and fish are major risk factors for poor health,” observes Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, in an accompanying editorial. “This suggests that common human biology, not merely confounding, explains these observed diet–disease relationships, strengthening causal inference on the power of nutrition.”

Moreover, “These findings provide further support that dairy foods, including whole-fat dairy, can be part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Mozaffarian writes. “The new results in PURE, in combination with prior reports, call for a re-evaluation of unrelenting guidelines to avoid whole-fat dairy products.”

Such studies “remind us of the continuing and devastating rise in diet-related chronic diseases globally, and of the power of protective foods to help address these burdens,” the editorial continues. “It is time for national nutrition guidelines, private sector innovations, government tax policy and agricultural incentives, food procurement policies, labeling and other regulatory priorities, and food-based health care interventions to catch up to the science.”
 

Not automatically superior

“I do not believe guidelines should be changed based on this single study,” contends Howard D. Sesso, ScD, MPH, associate director of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who isn’t part of PURE. “But I welcome the scientific dialog that should come out of any study that challenges what we think we know,” he told this news organization.

“Many other dietary patterns have been identified over the years that also do a great job in predicting disease risk in observational studies,” observed Dr. Sesso. “Is PURE that much better? Maybe, maybe not. But not enough to dismiss other dietary patterns that are already the basis of dietary recommendations in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide.”

The PURE healthy diet score, he said, “appears to work well within the confines of their large pooling of studies around the world, but that doesn’t automatically make it superior to other dietary patterns.” The score “was only modestly, but not greatly, better than existing dietary patterns evaluated.”

Randomized controlled trials are needed, Dr. Sesso said, to “delve into more specific dietary components,” including unprocessed red meat, whole grains, and high-fat dairy foods. And, he said, more observational studies are needed to examine the score’s association with other cardiometabolic outcomes.

The PURE study is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario; with support from Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Strategy for Patient Oriented Research through the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; and through unrestricted grants from several pharmaceutical companies, with major contributions from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline. Additional contributions are from Novartis and King Pharma. Dr. Mente, Dr. Mozaffarian, and Dr. Sesso have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a labeling update for the injectable LDL cholesterol–lowering agent inclisiran (Leqvio) that expands its indications to include primary prevention for patients with elevated LDL cholesterol, Novartis has announced.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent was approved in 2021 as an adjunct to statins for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The indications now include patients taking statins for primary dyslipidemia who have high-risk comorbidities such as diabetes but who do not have a history of cardiovascular events, the company said.

Inclisiran, with a mechanism of action unique among drugs for dyslipidemia, works by “silencing” RNA involved in the synthesis of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9. The protein helps regulate the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors.

Novartis said it has “global rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a labeling update for the injectable LDL cholesterol–lowering agent inclisiran (Leqvio) that expands its indications to include primary prevention for patients with elevated LDL cholesterol, Novartis has announced.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent was approved in 2021 as an adjunct to statins for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The indications now include patients taking statins for primary dyslipidemia who have high-risk comorbidities such as diabetes but who do not have a history of cardiovascular events, the company said.

Inclisiran, with a mechanism of action unique among drugs for dyslipidemia, works by “silencing” RNA involved in the synthesis of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9. The protein helps regulate the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors.

Novartis said it has “global rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a labeling update for the injectable LDL cholesterol–lowering agent inclisiran (Leqvio) that expands its indications to include primary prevention for patients with elevated LDL cholesterol, Novartis has announced.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent was approved in 2021 as an adjunct to statins for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The indications now include patients taking statins for primary dyslipidemia who have high-risk comorbidities such as diabetes but who do not have a history of cardiovascular events, the company said.

Inclisiran, with a mechanism of action unique among drugs for dyslipidemia, works by “silencing” RNA involved in the synthesis of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9. The protein helps regulate the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors.

Novartis said it has “global rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

A teenager who weighed 300 lb and was homeschooled because he was too big to fit in a classroom chair is among the patients Manal Habib, MD, has seen in her pediatric endocrinology practice.

The boy, a social butterfly who hated isolation and blamed himself for his “poor choices,” turned out to have an MC4R mutation that interfered with proper metabolism and satiation signals.

“People often blame obese and overweight people for not having enough willpower, but it’s often a physiological problem,” said Dr. Habib, who works at the University of California, Los Angeles.

She is among the clinicians offering more aggressive forms of weight management, prescribing medications, including metformin, semaglutide, and liraglutide – often off-label – to help children and teens with obesity who do not respond to lifestyle changes.

The results of intensive interventions can be life-changing: The teen Dr. Habib treated is back at school, playing sports, and no longer needs drugs to reduce cholesterol and blood pressure. He now takes a low maintenance dose of a weight-loss medication.

But the long-term effects of these new agents on children and teens are poorly understood, and both medication and surgery are associated with significant complications. Pediatricians treating kids pre- or post-intervention should be alert to a range of physical, psychological, and behavioral risks and complications.
 

Keeping bones healthy

Pediatricians should be aware of the risk to bone health in patients who undergo surgery, according to Misra Madhusmita, MD, chief of pediatric endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. In a recent study, Dr. Madhusmita and her colleagues found that sleeve gastrectomy reduced vertebral bone strength in adolescents and young adults.

“This is a time of life when bone mass is typically accruing rapidly,” Dr. Madhusmita told this news organization. “A deleterious effect on bone accrual at this time of life raises concerns about suboptimal acquisition of peak bone mass, which is typically attained in early adult life and is a key factor determining bone health and fracture risk in later life.”

Reduced skeletal loading and muscle mass can weaken bones, as can malabsorption of nutrients. Fat loss can trigger lower levels of bioavailable androgens and their subsequent conversion to estrogen, negatively affecting bone density. And sleeve gastrectomy in particular lowers ghrelin, another hormone influencing skeletal health.

Clinicians should advise patients who have had surgery to follow a healthy diet and consume sufficient levels of calcium and vitamin D, said Dr. Madhusmita. Weight-bearing exercises, weight training, and resistance training are also imperative to build bone mass and muscle. Any preexisting conditions or lifestyle factors that weaken the bones should be taken into consideration.
 

Managing expectations

The long-term effects of weight loss medications on children are less documented than with surgery, according to Caren Mangarelli, MD, a former primary care physician who is now medical director of both the adolescent bariatric program and the children’s wellness and weight management clinic at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, Ill.

But one significant known risk is the potential for rebound weight gain and the complications like high blood pressure and high blood sugar that go with it if the patient stops medication. Dr. Mangarelli said that many clinicians lack the training required to safely facilitate weight loss medications for kids.

“We have to remember that obesity is a chronic disease, especially for those with more severe forms,” she said. “They’re not likely to outgrow it. It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ll just put a patient on medication, they’ll lose weight, and we’ll take them off of it,’ because you could create a bad cycle of losing weight, followed by metabolism slowing down, hunger cues going up, and weight going back up.”

Making the risks of stopping medication clear and supporting compliance are essential, especially when it comes to injectables like semaglutide, which can be more burdensome than taking pills, requiring weekly subcutaneous injections. Pediatricians should ensure that families understand that medication is a long-term solution, Dr. Habib said.

Many families and patients “want a quick result. They’re focused on a specific size or weight, and they want to take the medication for a short period without changing anything else,” Dr. Habib said.

But children with genetic abnormalities or severe obesity could be on medication for their entire lives. Patients who make significant healthy lifestyle changes have a greater chance of weaning off drug therapy.

But “it’s hard with children because they’re dependent on their family,” Dr. Habib said. “One of the first things that I talk about with families is that it’s very important for everyone to be involved in making healthy changes, especially the parents, because the kids are going to follow their lifestyle and choices, not necessarily what they tell them to do.”
 

The behavioral and mental

One of Dr. Habib’s most striking cases was a 6-year-old patient with autism spectrum disorder experiencing early-onset puberty. Her condition made it difficult for her parents to enforce behavioral and lifestyle changes, making medication the best option to normalize the young girl’s body.

“The goal in this case is not necessarily to help her lose weight, but to prevent her from having severe health risks at such a young age,” said Habib.

Though medication may be the best solution when other options have failed, the ease of using medication may mean clinicians fail to address the complex emotional and psychosocial factors that can both cause and result from obesity.

“A lot of families think that if just this one thing were better, everything else would fall into place,” Habib said. “But there often are multiple layers to treating the patient.”

According to Cambria Garrell, MD, a pediatrician at the UCLA Fit for Healthy Weight Program in Los Angeles, pediatricians should be aware of the psychosocial and mental health factors such as undiagnosed mental illness or family dysfunction.

Dr. Garrell sometimes cares for children with undiagnosed mental health disorders. Children with conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorders may struggle with eating because of impulse control and sensory processing issues. Family functioning, issues at school, and lack of sleep are also major contributors to obesity to screen for.

“We really like to think about the environmental and psychosocial factors contributing to obesity instead of just pathologizing the weight,” Dr. Garrell said.
 

Risk for alcohol abuse

Bariatric and metabolic surgeries are associated with an increased risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Pediatricians treating children pre- or post-op should ensure that patients receive behavioral and mental health services to minimize the risk for alcohol abuse.

The risk for AUD is likely the result of changes to the way the body metabolizes alcohol, resulting in heightened sensitivity to it, although research is not conclusive, according to Dr. Mangarelli.

The risk for AUD is likely multifactorial, Dr. Mangarelli said.

“We don’t totally understand all of it, but if you’re experiencing a high more easily, that may lead to misuse,” Dr. Mangarelli said. “It’s also important to remember that this population of patients has experienced stigma for a very long time, and they often have associated mental health and body image issues.”

“Those problems don’t disappear on their own,” she added. “You want to make sure that patients are hooked into behavioral and mental health services before surgery so that they have somebody who’s following them after surgery.”

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

A teenager who weighed 300 lb and was homeschooled because he was too big to fit in a classroom chair is among the patients Manal Habib, MD, has seen in her pediatric endocrinology practice.

The boy, a social butterfly who hated isolation and blamed himself for his “poor choices,” turned out to have an MC4R mutation that interfered with proper metabolism and satiation signals.

“People often blame obese and overweight people for not having enough willpower, but it’s often a physiological problem,” said Dr. Habib, who works at the University of California, Los Angeles.

She is among the clinicians offering more aggressive forms of weight management, prescribing medications, including metformin, semaglutide, and liraglutide – often off-label – to help children and teens with obesity who do not respond to lifestyle changes.

The results of intensive interventions can be life-changing: The teen Dr. Habib treated is back at school, playing sports, and no longer needs drugs to reduce cholesterol and blood pressure. He now takes a low maintenance dose of a weight-loss medication.

But the long-term effects of these new agents on children and teens are poorly understood, and both medication and surgery are associated with significant complications. Pediatricians treating kids pre- or post-intervention should be alert to a range of physical, psychological, and behavioral risks and complications.
 

Keeping bones healthy

Pediatricians should be aware of the risk to bone health in patients who undergo surgery, according to Misra Madhusmita, MD, chief of pediatric endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. In a recent study, Dr. Madhusmita and her colleagues found that sleeve gastrectomy reduced vertebral bone strength in adolescents and young adults.

“This is a time of life when bone mass is typically accruing rapidly,” Dr. Madhusmita told this news organization. “A deleterious effect on bone accrual at this time of life raises concerns about suboptimal acquisition of peak bone mass, which is typically attained in early adult life and is a key factor determining bone health and fracture risk in later life.”

Reduced skeletal loading and muscle mass can weaken bones, as can malabsorption of nutrients. Fat loss can trigger lower levels of bioavailable androgens and their subsequent conversion to estrogen, negatively affecting bone density. And sleeve gastrectomy in particular lowers ghrelin, another hormone influencing skeletal health.

Clinicians should advise patients who have had surgery to follow a healthy diet and consume sufficient levels of calcium and vitamin D, said Dr. Madhusmita. Weight-bearing exercises, weight training, and resistance training are also imperative to build bone mass and muscle. Any preexisting conditions or lifestyle factors that weaken the bones should be taken into consideration.
 

Managing expectations

The long-term effects of weight loss medications on children are less documented than with surgery, according to Caren Mangarelli, MD, a former primary care physician who is now medical director of both the adolescent bariatric program and the children’s wellness and weight management clinic at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, Ill.

But one significant known risk is the potential for rebound weight gain and the complications like high blood pressure and high blood sugar that go with it if the patient stops medication. Dr. Mangarelli said that many clinicians lack the training required to safely facilitate weight loss medications for kids.

“We have to remember that obesity is a chronic disease, especially for those with more severe forms,” she said. “They’re not likely to outgrow it. It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ll just put a patient on medication, they’ll lose weight, and we’ll take them off of it,’ because you could create a bad cycle of losing weight, followed by metabolism slowing down, hunger cues going up, and weight going back up.”

Making the risks of stopping medication clear and supporting compliance are essential, especially when it comes to injectables like semaglutide, which can be more burdensome than taking pills, requiring weekly subcutaneous injections. Pediatricians should ensure that families understand that medication is a long-term solution, Dr. Habib said.

Many families and patients “want a quick result. They’re focused on a specific size or weight, and they want to take the medication for a short period without changing anything else,” Dr. Habib said.

But children with genetic abnormalities or severe obesity could be on medication for their entire lives. Patients who make significant healthy lifestyle changes have a greater chance of weaning off drug therapy.

But “it’s hard with children because they’re dependent on their family,” Dr. Habib said. “One of the first things that I talk about with families is that it’s very important for everyone to be involved in making healthy changes, especially the parents, because the kids are going to follow their lifestyle and choices, not necessarily what they tell them to do.”
 

The behavioral and mental

One of Dr. Habib’s most striking cases was a 6-year-old patient with autism spectrum disorder experiencing early-onset puberty. Her condition made it difficult for her parents to enforce behavioral and lifestyle changes, making medication the best option to normalize the young girl’s body.

“The goal in this case is not necessarily to help her lose weight, but to prevent her from having severe health risks at such a young age,” said Habib.

Though medication may be the best solution when other options have failed, the ease of using medication may mean clinicians fail to address the complex emotional and psychosocial factors that can both cause and result from obesity.

“A lot of families think that if just this one thing were better, everything else would fall into place,” Habib said. “But there often are multiple layers to treating the patient.”

According to Cambria Garrell, MD, a pediatrician at the UCLA Fit for Healthy Weight Program in Los Angeles, pediatricians should be aware of the psychosocial and mental health factors such as undiagnosed mental illness or family dysfunction.

Dr. Garrell sometimes cares for children with undiagnosed mental health disorders. Children with conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorders may struggle with eating because of impulse control and sensory processing issues. Family functioning, issues at school, and lack of sleep are also major contributors to obesity to screen for.

“We really like to think about the environmental and psychosocial factors contributing to obesity instead of just pathologizing the weight,” Dr. Garrell said.
 

Risk for alcohol abuse

Bariatric and metabolic surgeries are associated with an increased risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Pediatricians treating children pre- or post-op should ensure that patients receive behavioral and mental health services to minimize the risk for alcohol abuse.

The risk for AUD is likely the result of changes to the way the body metabolizes alcohol, resulting in heightened sensitivity to it, although research is not conclusive, according to Dr. Mangarelli.

The risk for AUD is likely multifactorial, Dr. Mangarelli said.

“We don’t totally understand all of it, but if you’re experiencing a high more easily, that may lead to misuse,” Dr. Mangarelli said. “It’s also important to remember that this population of patients has experienced stigma for a very long time, and they often have associated mental health and body image issues.”

“Those problems don’t disappear on their own,” she added. “You want to make sure that patients are hooked into behavioral and mental health services before surgery so that they have somebody who’s following them after surgery.”

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

A teenager who weighed 300 lb and was homeschooled because he was too big to fit in a classroom chair is among the patients Manal Habib, MD, has seen in her pediatric endocrinology practice.

The boy, a social butterfly who hated isolation and blamed himself for his “poor choices,” turned out to have an MC4R mutation that interfered with proper metabolism and satiation signals.

“People often blame obese and overweight people for not having enough willpower, but it’s often a physiological problem,” said Dr. Habib, who works at the University of California, Los Angeles.

She is among the clinicians offering more aggressive forms of weight management, prescribing medications, including metformin, semaglutide, and liraglutide – often off-label – to help children and teens with obesity who do not respond to lifestyle changes.

The results of intensive interventions can be life-changing: The teen Dr. Habib treated is back at school, playing sports, and no longer needs drugs to reduce cholesterol and blood pressure. He now takes a low maintenance dose of a weight-loss medication.

But the long-term effects of these new agents on children and teens are poorly understood, and both medication and surgery are associated with significant complications. Pediatricians treating kids pre- or post-intervention should be alert to a range of physical, psychological, and behavioral risks and complications.
 

Keeping bones healthy

Pediatricians should be aware of the risk to bone health in patients who undergo surgery, according to Misra Madhusmita, MD, chief of pediatric endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. In a recent study, Dr. Madhusmita and her colleagues found that sleeve gastrectomy reduced vertebral bone strength in adolescents and young adults.

“This is a time of life when bone mass is typically accruing rapidly,” Dr. Madhusmita told this news organization. “A deleterious effect on bone accrual at this time of life raises concerns about suboptimal acquisition of peak bone mass, which is typically attained in early adult life and is a key factor determining bone health and fracture risk in later life.”

Reduced skeletal loading and muscle mass can weaken bones, as can malabsorption of nutrients. Fat loss can trigger lower levels of bioavailable androgens and their subsequent conversion to estrogen, negatively affecting bone density. And sleeve gastrectomy in particular lowers ghrelin, another hormone influencing skeletal health.

Clinicians should advise patients who have had surgery to follow a healthy diet and consume sufficient levels of calcium and vitamin D, said Dr. Madhusmita. Weight-bearing exercises, weight training, and resistance training are also imperative to build bone mass and muscle. Any preexisting conditions or lifestyle factors that weaken the bones should be taken into consideration.
 

Managing expectations

The long-term effects of weight loss medications on children are less documented than with surgery, according to Caren Mangarelli, MD, a former primary care physician who is now medical director of both the adolescent bariatric program and the children’s wellness and weight management clinic at Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, Ill.

But one significant known risk is the potential for rebound weight gain and the complications like high blood pressure and high blood sugar that go with it if the patient stops medication. Dr. Mangarelli said that many clinicians lack the training required to safely facilitate weight loss medications for kids.

“We have to remember that obesity is a chronic disease, especially for those with more severe forms,” she said. “They’re not likely to outgrow it. It’s not like, ‘Oh, we’ll just put a patient on medication, they’ll lose weight, and we’ll take them off of it,’ because you could create a bad cycle of losing weight, followed by metabolism slowing down, hunger cues going up, and weight going back up.”

Making the risks of stopping medication clear and supporting compliance are essential, especially when it comes to injectables like semaglutide, which can be more burdensome than taking pills, requiring weekly subcutaneous injections. Pediatricians should ensure that families understand that medication is a long-term solution, Dr. Habib said.

Many families and patients “want a quick result. They’re focused on a specific size or weight, and they want to take the medication for a short period without changing anything else,” Dr. Habib said.

But children with genetic abnormalities or severe obesity could be on medication for their entire lives. Patients who make significant healthy lifestyle changes have a greater chance of weaning off drug therapy.

But “it’s hard with children because they’re dependent on their family,” Dr. Habib said. “One of the first things that I talk about with families is that it’s very important for everyone to be involved in making healthy changes, especially the parents, because the kids are going to follow their lifestyle and choices, not necessarily what they tell them to do.”
 

The behavioral and mental

One of Dr. Habib’s most striking cases was a 6-year-old patient with autism spectrum disorder experiencing early-onset puberty. Her condition made it difficult for her parents to enforce behavioral and lifestyle changes, making medication the best option to normalize the young girl’s body.

“The goal in this case is not necessarily to help her lose weight, but to prevent her from having severe health risks at such a young age,” said Habib.

Though medication may be the best solution when other options have failed, the ease of using medication may mean clinicians fail to address the complex emotional and psychosocial factors that can both cause and result from obesity.

“A lot of families think that if just this one thing were better, everything else would fall into place,” Habib said. “But there often are multiple layers to treating the patient.”

According to Cambria Garrell, MD, a pediatrician at the UCLA Fit for Healthy Weight Program in Los Angeles, pediatricians should be aware of the psychosocial and mental health factors such as undiagnosed mental illness or family dysfunction.

Dr. Garrell sometimes cares for children with undiagnosed mental health disorders. Children with conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorders may struggle with eating because of impulse control and sensory processing issues. Family functioning, issues at school, and lack of sleep are also major contributors to obesity to screen for.

“We really like to think about the environmental and psychosocial factors contributing to obesity instead of just pathologizing the weight,” Dr. Garrell said.
 

Risk for alcohol abuse

Bariatric and metabolic surgeries are associated with an increased risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD). Pediatricians treating children pre- or post-op should ensure that patients receive behavioral and mental health services to minimize the risk for alcohol abuse.

The risk for AUD is likely the result of changes to the way the body metabolizes alcohol, resulting in heightened sensitivity to it, although research is not conclusive, according to Dr. Mangarelli.

The risk for AUD is likely multifactorial, Dr. Mangarelli said.

“We don’t totally understand all of it, but if you’re experiencing a high more easily, that may lead to misuse,” Dr. Mangarelli said. “It’s also important to remember that this population of patients has experienced stigma for a very long time, and they often have associated mental health and body image issues.”

“Those problems don’t disappear on their own,” she added. “You want to make sure that patients are hooked into behavioral and mental health services before surgery so that they have somebody who’s following them after surgery.”

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

In a move that raises the stakes in doctors’ ongoing scope-creep battle against nonphysician providers, the American Medical Association’s legislative body voted recently to change its policy on the supervision of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). AMA’s House of Delegates called for state medical boards to regulate APRNs in addition to nursing boards.

The AMA has long claimed that nonphysician providers, such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), need greater oversight because expanded scope of practice for advanced practice practitioners threatens patient safety and undermines the physician-led team model.

APRNs have been touted as a solution to expand access to care and reduce disparities, especially in rural and underserved communities, and they have been promoted by organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine. But the AMA disputes that scope expansions are necessary to increase access to care.

The organization that represents the nation’s physicians said in a prepared statement that it opposes scope expansions because removing doctors from the care team results in higher costs to the patient and lower quality care.

Several nursing organizations swiftly criticized the policy recommendation, including the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The policy shift would create more administrative burdens for APRNs and generate “a downstream effect that only hurts patients,” particularly those in underserved communities without timely access to care, ANA president Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, NEA-BC, told this news organization.  

“The licensing and regulation of APRNs have never required the oversight of state medical boards,” she said, adding that it should remain the obligation of nursing regulatory bodies.

Jon Fanning, MS, CAE, CNED, chief executive officer of the AANP, called the AMA proposal “flawed.”

“The restrictive involvement of the board of medicine directly contributes to health care access challenges, resulting in continued low health care rankings, geographic disparities in care, and unnecessary regulatory cost in these states,” he said in a press release.

Still, the AMA has vowed to #StopScopeCreep. Securing stricter practice guidelines was a central theme of the association’s recent annual meeting and a goal of its plan to strengthen the physician workforce. The organization invests heavily in advocacy and education efforts to defeat state bills seeking to extend APRN authority. To that end, the AMA Scope of Practice Partnership, a coalition of over 100 medical associations, has awarded members $3.5 million in grants to combat scope-expansion legislation.

The AMA and the American College of Radiology recently partnered to create advocacy materials, including handouts encouraging patients to ask questions such as: “Will a physician be reviewing my chart, lab results, x-rays, and other tests?”

The policy recommendation comes as concerns mount over the potential for significant physician shortages, fueled partly by older physicians’ retirements and doctors reducing hours or exiting the workforce due to pandemic fatigue and burnout.

While practice regulations vary by state, a new federal bill could change that by broadening the authority of APRNs under Medicare and Medicaid guidelines. Introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in April and supported by the ANA, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act would allow APRNs to perform more procedures, including cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and certification of terminal illness for hospice, according to an ANA press release.

In the meantime, several state legislatures are considering bills that would expand APRN scope of practice. Utah is the latest to join a growing list of states – about half now – offering full practice authority to NPs.

Other states offer a reduced scope of practice for APRNs, typically requiring a collaborative agreement with a supervising physician. The remaining states enforce tighter regulations and physician oversight.

A recent Medscape survey found that most physicians report having a good rapport with NPs but many have mixed feelings about giving them expanded practice roles, with one-third saying it would harm patient care. Feelings were only slightly more favorable toward PAs. However, about 75% of patients were either neutral or supportive of independent practice for NPs and PAs.

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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