MDedge Rheumatology

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Preconception and prenatal care are more complicated in women with chronic health conditions but attention to disease management and promoting the adoption of a healthier lifestyle can improve outcomes for mothers and infants, according to a growing body of research.

The latest version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Preconception Checklist, published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, highlights preexisting chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, lupus, and obesity as key factors to address in preconception care through disease management. A growing number of studies support the impact of these strategies on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies, according to the authors.
 

Meet Glycemic Control Goals Prior to Pregnancy

“Women with diabetes can have healthy pregnancies but need to prepare for pregnancy in advance,” Ellen W. Seely, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of clinical research in the endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“If glucose levels are running high in the first trimester, this is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, some of which are very serious,” said Dr. Seely. Getting glucose levels under control reduces the risk of birth defects in women with diabetes close to that of the general population, she said.

The American Diabetes Association has set a goal for women to attain an HbA1c of less than 6.5% before conception, Dr. Seely said. “In addition, some women with diabetes may be on medications that should be changed to another class prior to pregnancy,” she noted. Women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes often have hypertension as well, but ACE inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of fetal renal damage that can result in neonatal death; therefore, these medications should be stopped prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely emphasized.

“If a woman with type 2 diabetes is on medications other than insulin, recommendations from the ADA are to change to insulin prior to pregnancy, since we have the most data on the safety profile of insulin use in pregnancy,” she said.

To help women with diabetes improve glycemic control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely recommends home glucose monitoring, with checks of glucose four times a day, fasting, and 2 hours after each meal, and adjustment of insulin accordingly.

A healthy diet and physical activity remain important components of glycemic control as well. A barrier to proper preconception and prenatal care for women with diabetes is not knowing that a pregnancy should be planned, Dr. Seely said. Discussions about pregnancy should start at puberty for women with diabetes, according to the ADA, and the topic should be raised yearly so women can optimize their health and adjust medications prior to conception.

Although studies of drugs have been done to inform preconception care for women with diabetes, research is lacking in several areas, notably the safety of GLP-1 agonists in pregnancy, said Dr. Seely. “This class of drug is commonly used in type 2 diabetes and the current recommendation is to stop these agents 2 months prior to conception,” she said.
 

Conceive in Times of Lupus Remission

Advance planning also is important for a healthy pregnancy in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sayna Norouzi, MD, director of the glomerular disease clinic and polycystic kidney disease clinic of Loma Linda University Medical Center, California, said in an interview.

“Lupus mostly affects women of childbearing age and can create many challenges during pregnancy,” said Dr. Norouzi, the corresponding author of a recent review on managing lupus nephritis during pregnancy.

“Women with lupus face an increased risk of pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, problems with fetal growth, stillbirth, and premature birth, and these risks increase based on factors such as disease activity, certain antibodies in the body, and other baseline existing conditions such as high blood pressure,” she said.

“It can be difficult to distinguish between a lupus flare and pregnancy-related issues, so proper management is important,” she noted. The Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PROMISSE) study findings indicated a lupus nephritis relapse rate of 7.8% of patients in complete remission and 21% of those in partial remission during pregnancy, said Dr. Norouzi. “Current evidence has shown that SLE patients without lupus nephritis flare in the preconception period have a small risk of relapse during pregnancy,” she said.

Before and during pregnancy, women with lupus should work with their treating physicians to adjust medications for safety, watch for signs of flare, and aim to conceive during a period of lupus remission.

Preconception care for women with lupus nephritis involves a careful review of the medications used to control the disease and protect the kidneys and other organs, said Dr. Norouzi.

“Adjustments,” she said, “should be personalized, taking into account the mother’s health and the safety of the baby. Managing the disease actively during pregnancy may require changes to the treatment plan while minimizing risks,” she noted. However, changing medications can cause challenges for patients, as medications that are safer for pregnancy may lead to new symptoms and side effects, and patients will need to work closely with their healthcare providers to overcome new issues that arise, she added.

Preconception lifestyle changes such as increasing exercise and adopting a healthier diet can help with blood pressure control for kidney disease patients, said Dr. Norouzi.

In the review article, Dr. Norouzi and colleagues noted that preconception counseling for patients with lupus should address common comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidemia, and the risk for immediate and long-term cardiovascular complications.
 

Benefits of Preconception Obesity Care Extend to Infants

Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Institute of Medicine advise lifestyle interventions to reduce excessive weight gain during pregnancy and reduce the risk of inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and lipotoxicity that can promote complications in the mother and fetus during pregnancy.

In addition, a growing number of studies suggest that women with obesity who make healthy lifestyle changes prior to conception can reduce obesity-associated risks to their infants.

Adults born to women with obesity are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and early signs of heart remodeling are identifiable in newborns, Samuel J. Burden, PhD, a research associate in the department of women and children’s health, Kings’ College, London, said in an interview. “It is therefore important to investigate whether intervening either before or during pregnancy by promoting a healthy lifestyle can reduce this adverse impact on the heart and blood vessels,” he said.

In a recent study published in the International Journal of Obesity, Dr. Burden and colleagues examined data from eight studies based on data from five randomized, controlled trials including children of mothers with obesity who engaged in healthy lifestyle interventions of improved diet and increased physical activity prior to and during pregnancy. The study population included children ranging in age from less than 2 months to 3-7 years.

Lifestyle interventions for mothers both before conception and during pregnancy were associated with significant changes in cardiac remodeling in the children, notably reduced interventricular septal wall thickness. Additionally, five studies of cardiac systolic function and three studies of diastolic function showed improvement in blood pressure in children of mothers who took part in the interventions.

Dr. Burden acknowledged that lifestyle changes in women with obesity before conception and during pregnancy can be challenging, but should be encouraged. “During pregnancy, it may also seem unnatural to increase daily physical activity or change the way you are eating.” He emphasized that patients should consult their physicians and follow an established program. More randomized, controlled trials are needed from the preconception period to examine whether the health benefits are greater if the intervention begins prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Burden. However, “the current findings indeed indicate that women with obesity who lead a healthy lifestyle before and during their pregnancy can reduce the degree of unhealthy heart remodeling in their children,” he said.

Dr. Seely, Dr. Norouzi, and Dr. Burden had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Preconception and prenatal care are more complicated in women with chronic health conditions but attention to disease management and promoting the adoption of a healthier lifestyle can improve outcomes for mothers and infants, according to a growing body of research.

The latest version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Preconception Checklist, published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, highlights preexisting chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, lupus, and obesity as key factors to address in preconception care through disease management. A growing number of studies support the impact of these strategies on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies, according to the authors.
 

Meet Glycemic Control Goals Prior to Pregnancy

“Women with diabetes can have healthy pregnancies but need to prepare for pregnancy in advance,” Ellen W. Seely, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of clinical research in the endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“If glucose levels are running high in the first trimester, this is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, some of which are very serious,” said Dr. Seely. Getting glucose levels under control reduces the risk of birth defects in women with diabetes close to that of the general population, she said.

The American Diabetes Association has set a goal for women to attain an HbA1c of less than 6.5% before conception, Dr. Seely said. “In addition, some women with diabetes may be on medications that should be changed to another class prior to pregnancy,” she noted. Women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes often have hypertension as well, but ACE inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of fetal renal damage that can result in neonatal death; therefore, these medications should be stopped prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely emphasized.

“If a woman with type 2 diabetes is on medications other than insulin, recommendations from the ADA are to change to insulin prior to pregnancy, since we have the most data on the safety profile of insulin use in pregnancy,” she said.

To help women with diabetes improve glycemic control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely recommends home glucose monitoring, with checks of glucose four times a day, fasting, and 2 hours after each meal, and adjustment of insulin accordingly.

A healthy diet and physical activity remain important components of glycemic control as well. A barrier to proper preconception and prenatal care for women with diabetes is not knowing that a pregnancy should be planned, Dr. Seely said. Discussions about pregnancy should start at puberty for women with diabetes, according to the ADA, and the topic should be raised yearly so women can optimize their health and adjust medications prior to conception.

Although studies of drugs have been done to inform preconception care for women with diabetes, research is lacking in several areas, notably the safety of GLP-1 agonists in pregnancy, said Dr. Seely. “This class of drug is commonly used in type 2 diabetes and the current recommendation is to stop these agents 2 months prior to conception,” she said.
 

Conceive in Times of Lupus Remission

Advance planning also is important for a healthy pregnancy in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sayna Norouzi, MD, director of the glomerular disease clinic and polycystic kidney disease clinic of Loma Linda University Medical Center, California, said in an interview.

“Lupus mostly affects women of childbearing age and can create many challenges during pregnancy,” said Dr. Norouzi, the corresponding author of a recent review on managing lupus nephritis during pregnancy.

“Women with lupus face an increased risk of pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, problems with fetal growth, stillbirth, and premature birth, and these risks increase based on factors such as disease activity, certain antibodies in the body, and other baseline existing conditions such as high blood pressure,” she said.

“It can be difficult to distinguish between a lupus flare and pregnancy-related issues, so proper management is important,” she noted. The Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PROMISSE) study findings indicated a lupus nephritis relapse rate of 7.8% of patients in complete remission and 21% of those in partial remission during pregnancy, said Dr. Norouzi. “Current evidence has shown that SLE patients without lupus nephritis flare in the preconception period have a small risk of relapse during pregnancy,” she said.

Before and during pregnancy, women with lupus should work with their treating physicians to adjust medications for safety, watch for signs of flare, and aim to conceive during a period of lupus remission.

Preconception care for women with lupus nephritis involves a careful review of the medications used to control the disease and protect the kidneys and other organs, said Dr. Norouzi.

“Adjustments,” she said, “should be personalized, taking into account the mother’s health and the safety of the baby. Managing the disease actively during pregnancy may require changes to the treatment plan while minimizing risks,” she noted. However, changing medications can cause challenges for patients, as medications that are safer for pregnancy may lead to new symptoms and side effects, and patients will need to work closely with their healthcare providers to overcome new issues that arise, she added.

Preconception lifestyle changes such as increasing exercise and adopting a healthier diet can help with blood pressure control for kidney disease patients, said Dr. Norouzi.

In the review article, Dr. Norouzi and colleagues noted that preconception counseling for patients with lupus should address common comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidemia, and the risk for immediate and long-term cardiovascular complications.
 

Benefits of Preconception Obesity Care Extend to Infants

Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Institute of Medicine advise lifestyle interventions to reduce excessive weight gain during pregnancy and reduce the risk of inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and lipotoxicity that can promote complications in the mother and fetus during pregnancy.

In addition, a growing number of studies suggest that women with obesity who make healthy lifestyle changes prior to conception can reduce obesity-associated risks to their infants.

Adults born to women with obesity are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and early signs of heart remodeling are identifiable in newborns, Samuel J. Burden, PhD, a research associate in the department of women and children’s health, Kings’ College, London, said in an interview. “It is therefore important to investigate whether intervening either before or during pregnancy by promoting a healthy lifestyle can reduce this adverse impact on the heart and blood vessels,” he said.

In a recent study published in the International Journal of Obesity, Dr. Burden and colleagues examined data from eight studies based on data from five randomized, controlled trials including children of mothers with obesity who engaged in healthy lifestyle interventions of improved diet and increased physical activity prior to and during pregnancy. The study population included children ranging in age from less than 2 months to 3-7 years.

Lifestyle interventions for mothers both before conception and during pregnancy were associated with significant changes in cardiac remodeling in the children, notably reduced interventricular septal wall thickness. Additionally, five studies of cardiac systolic function and three studies of diastolic function showed improvement in blood pressure in children of mothers who took part in the interventions.

Dr. Burden acknowledged that lifestyle changes in women with obesity before conception and during pregnancy can be challenging, but should be encouraged. “During pregnancy, it may also seem unnatural to increase daily physical activity or change the way you are eating.” He emphasized that patients should consult their physicians and follow an established program. More randomized, controlled trials are needed from the preconception period to examine whether the health benefits are greater if the intervention begins prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Burden. However, “the current findings indeed indicate that women with obesity who lead a healthy lifestyle before and during their pregnancy can reduce the degree of unhealthy heart remodeling in their children,” he said.

Dr. Seely, Dr. Norouzi, and Dr. Burden had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Preconception and prenatal care are more complicated in women with chronic health conditions but attention to disease management and promoting the adoption of a healthier lifestyle can improve outcomes for mothers and infants, according to a growing body of research.

The latest version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Preconception Checklist, published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, highlights preexisting chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, lupus, and obesity as key factors to address in preconception care through disease management. A growing number of studies support the impact of these strategies on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies, according to the authors.
 

Meet Glycemic Control Goals Prior to Pregnancy

“Women with diabetes can have healthy pregnancies but need to prepare for pregnancy in advance,” Ellen W. Seely, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of clinical research in the endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“If glucose levels are running high in the first trimester, this is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, some of which are very serious,” said Dr. Seely. Getting glucose levels under control reduces the risk of birth defects in women with diabetes close to that of the general population, she said.

The American Diabetes Association has set a goal for women to attain an HbA1c of less than 6.5% before conception, Dr. Seely said. “In addition, some women with diabetes may be on medications that should be changed to another class prior to pregnancy,” she noted. Women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes often have hypertension as well, but ACE inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of fetal renal damage that can result in neonatal death; therefore, these medications should be stopped prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely emphasized.

“If a woman with type 2 diabetes is on medications other than insulin, recommendations from the ADA are to change to insulin prior to pregnancy, since we have the most data on the safety profile of insulin use in pregnancy,” she said.

To help women with diabetes improve glycemic control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely recommends home glucose monitoring, with checks of glucose four times a day, fasting, and 2 hours after each meal, and adjustment of insulin accordingly.

A healthy diet and physical activity remain important components of glycemic control as well. A barrier to proper preconception and prenatal care for women with diabetes is not knowing that a pregnancy should be planned, Dr. Seely said. Discussions about pregnancy should start at puberty for women with diabetes, according to the ADA, and the topic should be raised yearly so women can optimize their health and adjust medications prior to conception.

Although studies of drugs have been done to inform preconception care for women with diabetes, research is lacking in several areas, notably the safety of GLP-1 agonists in pregnancy, said Dr. Seely. “This class of drug is commonly used in type 2 diabetes and the current recommendation is to stop these agents 2 months prior to conception,” she said.
 

Conceive in Times of Lupus Remission

Advance planning also is important for a healthy pregnancy in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sayna Norouzi, MD, director of the glomerular disease clinic and polycystic kidney disease clinic of Loma Linda University Medical Center, California, said in an interview.

“Lupus mostly affects women of childbearing age and can create many challenges during pregnancy,” said Dr. Norouzi, the corresponding author of a recent review on managing lupus nephritis during pregnancy.

“Women with lupus face an increased risk of pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, problems with fetal growth, stillbirth, and premature birth, and these risks increase based on factors such as disease activity, certain antibodies in the body, and other baseline existing conditions such as high blood pressure,” she said.

“It can be difficult to distinguish between a lupus flare and pregnancy-related issues, so proper management is important,” she noted. The Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PROMISSE) study findings indicated a lupus nephritis relapse rate of 7.8% of patients in complete remission and 21% of those in partial remission during pregnancy, said Dr. Norouzi. “Current evidence has shown that SLE patients without lupus nephritis flare in the preconception period have a small risk of relapse during pregnancy,” she said.

Before and during pregnancy, women with lupus should work with their treating physicians to adjust medications for safety, watch for signs of flare, and aim to conceive during a period of lupus remission.

Preconception care for women with lupus nephritis involves a careful review of the medications used to control the disease and protect the kidneys and other organs, said Dr. Norouzi.

“Adjustments,” she said, “should be personalized, taking into account the mother’s health and the safety of the baby. Managing the disease actively during pregnancy may require changes to the treatment plan while minimizing risks,” she noted. However, changing medications can cause challenges for patients, as medications that are safer for pregnancy may lead to new symptoms and side effects, and patients will need to work closely with their healthcare providers to overcome new issues that arise, she added.

Preconception lifestyle changes such as increasing exercise and adopting a healthier diet can help with blood pressure control for kidney disease patients, said Dr. Norouzi.

In the review article, Dr. Norouzi and colleagues noted that preconception counseling for patients with lupus should address common comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidemia, and the risk for immediate and long-term cardiovascular complications.
 

Benefits of Preconception Obesity Care Extend to Infants

Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Institute of Medicine advise lifestyle interventions to reduce excessive weight gain during pregnancy and reduce the risk of inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and lipotoxicity that can promote complications in the mother and fetus during pregnancy.

In addition, a growing number of studies suggest that women with obesity who make healthy lifestyle changes prior to conception can reduce obesity-associated risks to their infants.

Adults born to women with obesity are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and early signs of heart remodeling are identifiable in newborns, Samuel J. Burden, PhD, a research associate in the department of women and children’s health, Kings’ College, London, said in an interview. “It is therefore important to investigate whether intervening either before or during pregnancy by promoting a healthy lifestyle can reduce this adverse impact on the heart and blood vessels,” he said.

In a recent study published in the International Journal of Obesity, Dr. Burden and colleagues examined data from eight studies based on data from five randomized, controlled trials including children of mothers with obesity who engaged in healthy lifestyle interventions of improved diet and increased physical activity prior to and during pregnancy. The study population included children ranging in age from less than 2 months to 3-7 years.

Lifestyle interventions for mothers both before conception and during pregnancy were associated with significant changes in cardiac remodeling in the children, notably reduced interventricular septal wall thickness. Additionally, five studies of cardiac systolic function and three studies of diastolic function showed improvement in blood pressure in children of mothers who took part in the interventions.

Dr. Burden acknowledged that lifestyle changes in women with obesity before conception and during pregnancy can be challenging, but should be encouraged. “During pregnancy, it may also seem unnatural to increase daily physical activity or change the way you are eating.” He emphasized that patients should consult their physicians and follow an established program. More randomized, controlled trials are needed from the preconception period to examine whether the health benefits are greater if the intervention begins prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Burden. However, “the current findings indeed indicate that women with obesity who lead a healthy lifestyle before and during their pregnancy can reduce the degree of unhealthy heart remodeling in their children,” he said.

Dr. Seely, Dr. Norouzi, and Dr. Burden had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Some degree of pain is inevitable in older individuals, and as people pass 80 years of age, the harms of medications used to control chronic pain increase. Pain-reducing medication use in this age group may cause inflammation, gastric bleeding, kidney damage, or constipation.

These risks may lead some clinicians to avoid aggressive pain treatment in their eldest patients, resulting in unnecessary suffering.

“Pain causes harm beyond just the physical suffering associated with it,” said Diane Meier, MD, a geriatrician and palliative care specialist at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York City who treats many people in their 80s and 90s.

Downstream effects of untreated pain could include a loss of mobility and isolation, Dr. Meier said. And, as these harms are mounting, some clinicians may avoid using an analgesic that could bring great relief: buprenorphine.

“People think about buprenorphine like they think about methadone,” Dr. Meier said, as something prescribed to treat substance use disorder. In reality, it is an effective analgesic in other situations.

Buprenorphine is better at treating chronic pain than other opioids that carry a higher addiction risk and often cause constipation in elderly patients. Buprenorphine is easier on the kidneys and has a lower addiction risk than opioids like oxycodone.

The transdermal patch form of buprenorphine (Butrans, PurduePharma) is changed weekly and starts at low doses.

“There’s an adage in geriatrics: start low and go slow,” said Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, a palliative care and addiction medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Merlin recommends beginning elderly patients with chronic pain on a 10-microgram/hour dose of Butrans, among the lowest doses available. Physicians could monitor side effects, which will generally be mild, with the aim of never increasing the dose if pain is managed.
 

Nonpharmacologic Remedies, Drug Considerations

“Nonpharmacologic therapy is very underutilized,” Dr. Merlin said, even though multiple alternatives to medications can improve chronic pain symptoms at any age.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy or acceptance and commitment therapy can both help people reduce the impact of pain, Dr. Merlin said. And for people who can do so, physical therapy programs, yoga, or tai chi are all ways to strengthen the body’s defenses against pain, Dr. Merlin added.

Sometimes medication is necessary, however.

“You can’t get an older person to participate in rehab if they are in severe pain,” Dr. Meier said, adding that judicious use of medications should go hand in hand with nonpharmacologic treatment.

When medications are unavoidable, internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, starts with topical injections at the site of the pain — a troublesome joint, for example — rather than systemic medications that affect multiple organs and the brain.

“We try not to flood their body with meds” for localized problems, Dr. Paauw said, whose goal when treating elderly patients with pain is to improve their daily functioning and quality of life.

Dr. Paauw works at the University of Washington in Seattle and treats people who are approaching 100 years old. As some of his patients have grown older, Dr. Paauw’s interest in effective pain management has grown; he thinks that all internists and family medicine physician need to know how to manage chronic pain in their eldest patients.

“Were you able to play with your grandkid? Were you able to go grocery shopping? Were you able to take a walk outside?” These are the kinds of improvements Dr. Paauw hopes to see in older patients, recognizing that the wear and tear of life — orthopedic stresses or healed fractures that cause lingering pain — make it impossible for many older people to be pain free.

Pain is often spread throughout the body rather than focusing at one point, which requires systemic medications if physical therapy and similar approaches have not reduced pain. Per American Geriatrics Society (AGS) guidelines, in this situation Dr. Paauw starts with acetaminophen (Tylenol) as the lowest-risk systemic pain treatment.

Dr. Pauuw often counsels older patients to begin with 2 grams/day of acetaminophen and then progress to 3 grams if the lower dose has manageable side effects, rather than the standard dose of 4 grams that he feels is geared toward younger patients.

When acetaminophen doesn’t reduce pain sufficiently, or aggravates inflammation, Dr. Paauw may use the nerve pain medication pregabalin, or the antidepressant duloxetine — especially if the pain appears to be neuropathic.

Tricyclic antidepressants used to be recommended for neuropathic pain in older adults, but are now on the AGS’s Beers Criteria of drugs to avoid in elderly patients due to risk of causing dizziness or cardiac stress. Dr. Paauw might still use a tricyclic, but only after a careful risk-benefit analysis.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen (Motrin) or naproxen (Aleve) could work in short bursts, Dr. Paauw said, although they may cause stomach bleeding or kidney damage in older patients.

This is why NSAIDs are not recommended by the AGS for chronic pain management. And opioids like oxycodone don’t work long at low doses, often leading to dose escalation and addiction.

“The American Geriatrics Society really puts opioids down at the bottom of the list,” Dr. Paauw said, to be used “judiciously and rarely.”

Opioids may interact with other drugs to increase risk of a fall, Dr. Meier added, making them inadvisable for older patients who live alone.

“That’s why knowing something about buprenorphine is so important,” Dr. Meier said.

Dr. Meier and Dr. Paauw are on the editorial board for Internal Medicine News. Dr. Merlin is a trainer for the Center to Advance Palliative Care, which Dr. Meier founded.
 

Some degree of pain is inevitable in older individuals, and as people pass 80 years of age, the harms of medications used to control chronic pain increase. Pain-reducing medication use in this age group may cause inflammation, gastric bleeding, kidney damage, or constipation.

These risks may lead some clinicians to avoid aggressive pain treatment in their eldest patients, resulting in unnecessary suffering.

“Pain causes harm beyond just the physical suffering associated with it,” said Diane Meier, MD, a geriatrician and palliative care specialist at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York City who treats many people in their 80s and 90s.

Downstream effects of untreated pain could include a loss of mobility and isolation, Dr. Meier said. And, as these harms are mounting, some clinicians may avoid using an analgesic that could bring great relief: buprenorphine.

“People think about buprenorphine like they think about methadone,” Dr. Meier said, as something prescribed to treat substance use disorder. In reality, it is an effective analgesic in other situations.

Buprenorphine is better at treating chronic pain than other opioids that carry a higher addiction risk and often cause constipation in elderly patients. Buprenorphine is easier on the kidneys and has a lower addiction risk than opioids like oxycodone.

The transdermal patch form of buprenorphine (Butrans, PurduePharma) is changed weekly and starts at low doses.

“There’s an adage in geriatrics: start low and go slow,” said Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, a palliative care and addiction medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Merlin recommends beginning elderly patients with chronic pain on a 10-microgram/hour dose of Butrans, among the lowest doses available. Physicians could monitor side effects, which will generally be mild, with the aim of never increasing the dose if pain is managed.
 

Nonpharmacologic Remedies, Drug Considerations

“Nonpharmacologic therapy is very underutilized,” Dr. Merlin said, even though multiple alternatives to medications can improve chronic pain symptoms at any age.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy or acceptance and commitment therapy can both help people reduce the impact of pain, Dr. Merlin said. And for people who can do so, physical therapy programs, yoga, or tai chi are all ways to strengthen the body’s defenses against pain, Dr. Merlin added.

Sometimes medication is necessary, however.

“You can’t get an older person to participate in rehab if they are in severe pain,” Dr. Meier said, adding that judicious use of medications should go hand in hand with nonpharmacologic treatment.

When medications are unavoidable, internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, starts with topical injections at the site of the pain — a troublesome joint, for example — rather than systemic medications that affect multiple organs and the brain.

“We try not to flood their body with meds” for localized problems, Dr. Paauw said, whose goal when treating elderly patients with pain is to improve their daily functioning and quality of life.

Dr. Paauw works at the University of Washington in Seattle and treats people who are approaching 100 years old. As some of his patients have grown older, Dr. Paauw’s interest in effective pain management has grown; he thinks that all internists and family medicine physician need to know how to manage chronic pain in their eldest patients.

“Were you able to play with your grandkid? Were you able to go grocery shopping? Were you able to take a walk outside?” These are the kinds of improvements Dr. Paauw hopes to see in older patients, recognizing that the wear and tear of life — orthopedic stresses or healed fractures that cause lingering pain — make it impossible for many older people to be pain free.

Pain is often spread throughout the body rather than focusing at one point, which requires systemic medications if physical therapy and similar approaches have not reduced pain. Per American Geriatrics Society (AGS) guidelines, in this situation Dr. Paauw starts with acetaminophen (Tylenol) as the lowest-risk systemic pain treatment.

Dr. Pauuw often counsels older patients to begin with 2 grams/day of acetaminophen and then progress to 3 grams if the lower dose has manageable side effects, rather than the standard dose of 4 grams that he feels is geared toward younger patients.

When acetaminophen doesn’t reduce pain sufficiently, or aggravates inflammation, Dr. Paauw may use the nerve pain medication pregabalin, or the antidepressant duloxetine — especially if the pain appears to be neuropathic.

Tricyclic antidepressants used to be recommended for neuropathic pain in older adults, but are now on the AGS’s Beers Criteria of drugs to avoid in elderly patients due to risk of causing dizziness or cardiac stress. Dr. Paauw might still use a tricyclic, but only after a careful risk-benefit analysis.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen (Motrin) or naproxen (Aleve) could work in short bursts, Dr. Paauw said, although they may cause stomach bleeding or kidney damage in older patients.

This is why NSAIDs are not recommended by the AGS for chronic pain management. And opioids like oxycodone don’t work long at low doses, often leading to dose escalation and addiction.

“The American Geriatrics Society really puts opioids down at the bottom of the list,” Dr. Paauw said, to be used “judiciously and rarely.”

Opioids may interact with other drugs to increase risk of a fall, Dr. Meier added, making them inadvisable for older patients who live alone.

“That’s why knowing something about buprenorphine is so important,” Dr. Meier said.

Dr. Meier and Dr. Paauw are on the editorial board for Internal Medicine News. Dr. Merlin is a trainer for the Center to Advance Palliative Care, which Dr. Meier founded.
 

Some degree of pain is inevitable in older individuals, and as people pass 80 years of age, the harms of medications used to control chronic pain increase. Pain-reducing medication use in this age group may cause inflammation, gastric bleeding, kidney damage, or constipation.

These risks may lead some clinicians to avoid aggressive pain treatment in their eldest patients, resulting in unnecessary suffering.

“Pain causes harm beyond just the physical suffering associated with it,” said Diane Meier, MD, a geriatrician and palliative care specialist at Mount Sinai Medicine in New York City who treats many people in their 80s and 90s.

Downstream effects of untreated pain could include a loss of mobility and isolation, Dr. Meier said. And, as these harms are mounting, some clinicians may avoid using an analgesic that could bring great relief: buprenorphine.

“People think about buprenorphine like they think about methadone,” Dr. Meier said, as something prescribed to treat substance use disorder. In reality, it is an effective analgesic in other situations.

Buprenorphine is better at treating chronic pain than other opioids that carry a higher addiction risk and often cause constipation in elderly patients. Buprenorphine is easier on the kidneys and has a lower addiction risk than opioids like oxycodone.

The transdermal patch form of buprenorphine (Butrans, PurduePharma) is changed weekly and starts at low doses.

“There’s an adage in geriatrics: start low and go slow,” said Jessica Merlin, MD, PhD, a palliative care and addiction medicine physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Merlin recommends beginning elderly patients with chronic pain on a 10-microgram/hour dose of Butrans, among the lowest doses available. Physicians could monitor side effects, which will generally be mild, with the aim of never increasing the dose if pain is managed.
 

Nonpharmacologic Remedies, Drug Considerations

“Nonpharmacologic therapy is very underutilized,” Dr. Merlin said, even though multiple alternatives to medications can improve chronic pain symptoms at any age.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy or acceptance and commitment therapy can both help people reduce the impact of pain, Dr. Merlin said. And for people who can do so, physical therapy programs, yoga, or tai chi are all ways to strengthen the body’s defenses against pain, Dr. Merlin added.

Sometimes medication is necessary, however.

“You can’t get an older person to participate in rehab if they are in severe pain,” Dr. Meier said, adding that judicious use of medications should go hand in hand with nonpharmacologic treatment.

When medications are unavoidable, internist Douglas S. Paauw, MD, starts with topical injections at the site of the pain — a troublesome joint, for example — rather than systemic medications that affect multiple organs and the brain.

“We try not to flood their body with meds” for localized problems, Dr. Paauw said, whose goal when treating elderly patients with pain is to improve their daily functioning and quality of life.

Dr. Paauw works at the University of Washington in Seattle and treats people who are approaching 100 years old. As some of his patients have grown older, Dr. Paauw’s interest in effective pain management has grown; he thinks that all internists and family medicine physician need to know how to manage chronic pain in their eldest patients.

“Were you able to play with your grandkid? Were you able to go grocery shopping? Were you able to take a walk outside?” These are the kinds of improvements Dr. Paauw hopes to see in older patients, recognizing that the wear and tear of life — orthopedic stresses or healed fractures that cause lingering pain — make it impossible for many older people to be pain free.

Pain is often spread throughout the body rather than focusing at one point, which requires systemic medications if physical therapy and similar approaches have not reduced pain. Per American Geriatrics Society (AGS) guidelines, in this situation Dr. Paauw starts with acetaminophen (Tylenol) as the lowest-risk systemic pain treatment.

Dr. Pauuw often counsels older patients to begin with 2 grams/day of acetaminophen and then progress to 3 grams if the lower dose has manageable side effects, rather than the standard dose of 4 grams that he feels is geared toward younger patients.

When acetaminophen doesn’t reduce pain sufficiently, or aggravates inflammation, Dr. Paauw may use the nerve pain medication pregabalin, or the antidepressant duloxetine — especially if the pain appears to be neuropathic.

Tricyclic antidepressants used to be recommended for neuropathic pain in older adults, but are now on the AGS’s Beers Criteria of drugs to avoid in elderly patients due to risk of causing dizziness or cardiac stress. Dr. Paauw might still use a tricyclic, but only after a careful risk-benefit analysis.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen (Motrin) or naproxen (Aleve) could work in short bursts, Dr. Paauw said, although they may cause stomach bleeding or kidney damage in older patients.

This is why NSAIDs are not recommended by the AGS for chronic pain management. And opioids like oxycodone don’t work long at low doses, often leading to dose escalation and addiction.

“The American Geriatrics Society really puts opioids down at the bottom of the list,” Dr. Paauw said, to be used “judiciously and rarely.”

Opioids may interact with other drugs to increase risk of a fall, Dr. Meier added, making them inadvisable for older patients who live alone.

“That’s why knowing something about buprenorphine is so important,” Dr. Meier said.

Dr. Meier and Dr. Paauw are on the editorial board for Internal Medicine News. Dr. Merlin is a trainer for the Center to Advance Palliative Care, which Dr. Meier founded.
 

The effectiveness of massage therapy for a range of painful adult health conditions remains uncertain. Despite hundreds of randomized clinical trials and dozens of systematic reviews, few studies have offered conclusions based on more than low-certainty evidence, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open has shown (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.22259).

Some moderate-certainty evidence, however, suggested massage therapy may alleviate pain related to such conditions as low-back problems, labor, and breast cancer surgery, concluded a group led by Selene Mak, PhD, MPH, program manager in the Evidence Synthesis Program at the Veterans Health Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in Los Angeles, California.

“More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to provide a stronger evidence base to assess the effect of massage therapy on pain,” Dr. Mak and colleagues wrote.

The review updates a previous Veterans Affairs evidence map covering reviews of massage therapy for pain published through 2018.

To categorize the evidence base for decision-making by policymakers and practitioners, the VA requested an updated evidence map of reviews to answer the question: “What is the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews of massage therapy for pain?”
 

The Analysis

The current review included studies published from 2018 to 2023 with formal ratings of evidence quality or certainty, excluding other nonpharmacologic techniques such as sports massage therapy, osteopathy, dry cupping, dry needling, and internal massage therapy, and self-administered techniques such as foam rolling.

Of 129 systematic reviews, only 41 formally rated evidence quality, and 17 were evidence-mapped for pain across 13 health states: cancer, back, neck and mechanical neck issues, fibromyalgia, labor, myofascial, palliative care need, plantar fasciitis, postoperative, post breast cancer surgery, and post cesarean/postpartum.

The investigators found no conclusions based on a high certainty of evidence, while seven based conclusions on moderate-certainty evidence. All remaining conclusions were rated as having low- or very-low-certainty evidence.

The priority, they added, should be studies comparing massage therapy with other recommended, accepted, and active therapies for pain and should have sufficiently long follow-up to allow any nonspecific outcomes to dissipate, At least 6 months’ follow-up has been suggested for studies of chronic pain.

While massage therapy is considered safe, in patients with central sensitizations more aggressive treatments may cause a flare of myofascial pain.

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The effectiveness of massage therapy for a range of painful adult health conditions remains uncertain. Despite hundreds of randomized clinical trials and dozens of systematic reviews, few studies have offered conclusions based on more than low-certainty evidence, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open has shown (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.22259).

Some moderate-certainty evidence, however, suggested massage therapy may alleviate pain related to such conditions as low-back problems, labor, and breast cancer surgery, concluded a group led by Selene Mak, PhD, MPH, program manager in the Evidence Synthesis Program at the Veterans Health Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in Los Angeles, California.

“More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to provide a stronger evidence base to assess the effect of massage therapy on pain,” Dr. Mak and colleagues wrote.

The review updates a previous Veterans Affairs evidence map covering reviews of massage therapy for pain published through 2018.

To categorize the evidence base for decision-making by policymakers and practitioners, the VA requested an updated evidence map of reviews to answer the question: “What is the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews of massage therapy for pain?”
 

The Analysis

The current review included studies published from 2018 to 2023 with formal ratings of evidence quality or certainty, excluding other nonpharmacologic techniques such as sports massage therapy, osteopathy, dry cupping, dry needling, and internal massage therapy, and self-administered techniques such as foam rolling.

Of 129 systematic reviews, only 41 formally rated evidence quality, and 17 were evidence-mapped for pain across 13 health states: cancer, back, neck and mechanical neck issues, fibromyalgia, labor, myofascial, palliative care need, plantar fasciitis, postoperative, post breast cancer surgery, and post cesarean/postpartum.

The investigators found no conclusions based on a high certainty of evidence, while seven based conclusions on moderate-certainty evidence. All remaining conclusions were rated as having low- or very-low-certainty evidence.

The priority, they added, should be studies comparing massage therapy with other recommended, accepted, and active therapies for pain and should have sufficiently long follow-up to allow any nonspecific outcomes to dissipate, At least 6 months’ follow-up has been suggested for studies of chronic pain.

While massage therapy is considered safe, in patients with central sensitizations more aggressive treatments may cause a flare of myofascial pain.

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The effectiveness of massage therapy for a range of painful adult health conditions remains uncertain. Despite hundreds of randomized clinical trials and dozens of systematic reviews, few studies have offered conclusions based on more than low-certainty evidence, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open has shown (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.22259).

Some moderate-certainty evidence, however, suggested massage therapy may alleviate pain related to such conditions as low-back problems, labor, and breast cancer surgery, concluded a group led by Selene Mak, PhD, MPH, program manager in the Evidence Synthesis Program at the Veterans Health Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System in Los Angeles, California.

“More high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to provide a stronger evidence base to assess the effect of massage therapy on pain,” Dr. Mak and colleagues wrote.

The review updates a previous Veterans Affairs evidence map covering reviews of massage therapy for pain published through 2018.

To categorize the evidence base for decision-making by policymakers and practitioners, the VA requested an updated evidence map of reviews to answer the question: “What is the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews of massage therapy for pain?”
 

The Analysis

The current review included studies published from 2018 to 2023 with formal ratings of evidence quality or certainty, excluding other nonpharmacologic techniques such as sports massage therapy, osteopathy, dry cupping, dry needling, and internal massage therapy, and self-administered techniques such as foam rolling.

Of 129 systematic reviews, only 41 formally rated evidence quality, and 17 were evidence-mapped for pain across 13 health states: cancer, back, neck and mechanical neck issues, fibromyalgia, labor, myofascial, palliative care need, plantar fasciitis, postoperative, post breast cancer surgery, and post cesarean/postpartum.

The investigators found no conclusions based on a high certainty of evidence, while seven based conclusions on moderate-certainty evidence. All remaining conclusions were rated as having low- or very-low-certainty evidence.

The priority, they added, should be studies comparing massage therapy with other recommended, accepted, and active therapies for pain and should have sufficiently long follow-up to allow any nonspecific outcomes to dissipate, At least 6 months’ follow-up has been suggested for studies of chronic pain.

While massage therapy is considered safe, in patients with central sensitizations more aggressive treatments may cause a flare of myofascial pain.

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.