Rheumatology News

TOPLINE:

According to this meta-analysis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects 112 out of every 100,000 adults globally, with higher rates observed in Europe and North America than in Asia and South America, according to an analysis of 30 studies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many previous epidemiological studies have estimated the global prevalence of PsA but have reported marked variations, which could be explained by differences in methodology and inclusion criteria.
• This meta-analysis used data from 30 studies conducted between 1982 and 2020 to estimate the worldwide prevalence of PsA in the general adult population, giving particular attention to methodological differences among the included studies.
• The included studies were either population-based (n = 13) or based on health administrative records (n = 17) and covered over 180 million adults across 24 countries.
• Overall, 15 studies were from Europe, seven from Asia, six from North America, and two from South America.

TAKEAWAY:

• The global prevalence of PsA was estimated at 113 (95% CI, 64-198) and 109 (75-158) cases per 100,000 based on population-based studies and health administrative data studies, respectively.
• The pooled global prevalence of PsA (combining the population-based and health administrative studies) was 112 cases per 100,000 (95% CI, 83-151).
• Combining both study designs, the global prevalence rates of PsA were 188 (95% CI, 128-289) cases per 100,000 for Europe, 48 (95% CI, 20-115) for Asia, 133 (95% CI, 93-191) for North America, and 17 (95% CI, 4-70) for South America.

IN PRACTICE:

“Robust estimates of prevalence are crucial for healthcare planning and resource allocation,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Stephanie Lembke, MSc, and colleagues from the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

The meta-analysis had high levels of uncertainty and high heterogeneity between studies. In countries with unequal healthcare access, using data from statutory or private insurance databases to calculate PsA prevalence may systematically exclude uninsured individuals or those covered by private insurers. Moreover, the data were insufficient for a statistically meaningful subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding from any public, commercial, or nonprofit sectors to carry out this work. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

According to this meta-analysis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects 112 out of every 100,000 adults globally, with higher rates observed in Europe and North America than in Asia and South America, according to an analysis of 30 studies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many previous epidemiological studies have estimated the global prevalence of PsA but have reported marked variations, which could be explained by differences in methodology and inclusion criteria.
• This meta-analysis used data from 30 studies conducted between 1982 and 2020 to estimate the worldwide prevalence of PsA in the general adult population, giving particular attention to methodological differences among the included studies.
• The included studies were either population-based (n = 13) or based on health administrative records (n = 17) and covered over 180 million adults across 24 countries.
• Overall, 15 studies were from Europe, seven from Asia, six from North America, and two from South America.

TAKEAWAY:

• The global prevalence of PsA was estimated at 113 (95% CI, 64-198) and 109 (75-158) cases per 100,000 based on population-based studies and health administrative data studies, respectively.
• The pooled global prevalence of PsA (combining the population-based and health administrative studies) was 112 cases per 100,000 (95% CI, 83-151).
• Combining both study designs, the global prevalence rates of PsA were 188 (95% CI, 128-289) cases per 100,000 for Europe, 48 (95% CI, 20-115) for Asia, 133 (95% CI, 93-191) for North America, and 17 (95% CI, 4-70) for South America.

IN PRACTICE:

“Robust estimates of prevalence are crucial for healthcare planning and resource allocation,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Stephanie Lembke, MSc, and colleagues from the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

The meta-analysis had high levels of uncertainty and high heterogeneity between studies. In countries with unequal healthcare access, using data from statutory or private insurance databases to calculate PsA prevalence may systematically exclude uninsured individuals or those covered by private insurers. Moreover, the data were insufficient for a statistically meaningful subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding from any public, commercial, or nonprofit sectors to carry out this work. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

According to this meta-analysis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) affects 112 out of every 100,000 adults globally, with higher rates observed in Europe and North America than in Asia and South America, according to an analysis of 30 studies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many previous epidemiological studies have estimated the global prevalence of PsA but have reported marked variations, which could be explained by differences in methodology and inclusion criteria.
• This meta-analysis used data from 30 studies conducted between 1982 and 2020 to estimate the worldwide prevalence of PsA in the general adult population, giving particular attention to methodological differences among the included studies.
• The included studies were either population-based (n = 13) or based on health administrative records (n = 17) and covered over 180 million adults across 24 countries.
• Overall, 15 studies were from Europe, seven from Asia, six from North America, and two from South America.

TAKEAWAY:

• The global prevalence of PsA was estimated at 113 (95% CI, 64-198) and 109 (75-158) cases per 100,000 based on population-based studies and health administrative data studies, respectively.
• The pooled global prevalence of PsA (combining the population-based and health administrative studies) was 112 cases per 100,000 (95% CI, 83-151).
• Combining both study designs, the global prevalence rates of PsA were 188 (95% CI, 128-289) cases per 100,000 for Europe, 48 (95% CI, 20-115) for Asia, 133 (95% CI, 93-191) for North America, and 17 (95% CI, 4-70) for South America.

IN PRACTICE:

“Robust estimates of prevalence are crucial for healthcare planning and resource allocation,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Stephanie Lembke, MSc, and colleagues from the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

The meta-analysis had high levels of uncertainty and high heterogeneity between studies. In countries with unequal healthcare access, using data from statutory or private insurance databases to calculate PsA prevalence may systematically exclude uninsured individuals or those covered by private insurers. Moreover, the data were insufficient for a statistically meaningful subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any specific funding from any public, commercial, or nonprofit sectors to carry out this work. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some of the best clinical trials of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV) that were presented at the 21st International Vasculitis Workshop in Barcelona, Spain, included studies addressing relapse after stopping steroids, preventing relapse with abatacept, improving kidney function with plasma exchange, and vaccinating rituximab-treated patients.
 

Stopping Steroids After Remission in GPA

In the randomized, open-label TAPIR (The Assessment of Prednisone In Remission Trial) study of 159 adults with GPA in remission who had tapered to a prednisone dose of 5 mg/day, those who remained at that dosage had a significantly lower rate of relapse after 6 months than those who tapered to 0 mg/day (4.2% vs 15.5%; P = .227), according to results reported at the meeting.

However, use of a higher dose of prednisone for disease relapse by 6 months was similar for patients who used rituximab at baseline (8.8% with 0 mg/day vs 6.1% with 5 mg/day; P = .667), and the difference in this primary outcome was more pronounced among patients who did not take rituximab at baseline (20.0% with 0 mg/day vs 2.6% with 5 mg/day; P = .023).

A higher percentage of patients taking prednisone 0 mg/day had disease relapses that were considered minor (14.1% and 4.2%; P = .0391). Major relapses occurred in none of the patients taking 5 mg/day and in 1.4% receiving 0 mg/day. About 90% of patients in either treatment arm completed the trial.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskelatal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, was unique in that half of patients randomized in the study were enrolled at community clinics and half were enrolled at Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium clinical centers.
 

Abatacept Falls Short for Preventing Relapse in GPA

Adding abatacept to glucocorticoids failed to reduce risk of relapse, worsening disease, or failure to reach remission in adults with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, based on data from a randomized trial of 65 individuals.

In the 20-site, randomized, double-blind ABROGATE (Abatacept for the Treatment of Relapsing, Non-Severe, Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis) study, 34 patients received 125 mg subcutaneous abatacept once a week or a placebo in addition to 30 mg/day of prednisone that was tapered and discontinued after 12 weeks. Patients who were receiving methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide at baseline continued the medication at a stable dose.

The primary outcome of disease worsening or relapse occurred in 62% of the abatacept group and 68% of the placebo group, and no significant difference in treatment failure rate appeared between the groups. In addition, key secondary endpoints of time to full remission, duration of glucocorticoid-free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient-reported quality of life outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

A total of 112 adverse events occurred, with similar type and severity between the groups, including incidence of infections.

The findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, but the results suggest a need for further research to determine mechanisms of disease and explore additional novel treatments for this rare patient population, the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Plasma Exchange Improves Kidney Function in AAV

Use of therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) as an adjunct treatment improved early kidney function in adults with AAV and glomerulonephritis but did not extend beyond 8 weeks, and recovery of kidney function was no different between patients receiving a regular glucocorticoid regimen versus a reduced course, based on a post-hoc analysis of 691 individuals in the international randomized controlled trial called PEXIVAS.

The primary outcomes of change in kidney function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline over 1 year and the percentage of patients with improvement in eGFR of at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m² at weeks 12, 26, and 52.

The rate of improved eGFR was significantly greater in the PLEX group, compared with controls, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. At 4 weeks, significantly more patients in the PLEX group had an increase in eGFR by at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m², compared with the control group (relative risk [RR], 1.41; P = .008). In addition, improved kidney function within 4 weeks was significantly associated with lower risk of kidney failure within 1 year, regardless of treatment group.

The original PEXIVAS trial was supported by various government institutes and agencies from multiple countries.
 

Reinforced Vaccine Strategy with Rituximab Improved Antibody Response in AAV

A vaccine strategy consisting of a double dose of 13-valent antipneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at day 0 and day 7 followed by a single dose of 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) at 5 months significantly improved antibody responses against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with AAV, compared with standard treatment, based on data from 95 individuals in the multicenter, open-label study called PNEUMOVAS.

Adults with newly diagnosed AAV were randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: a standard regimen of one dose of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 1); a double dose of PCV13 at day 0 and day 7 with a dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 2); or four doses of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 3). These patients received PCV13 within 2 days before or after their first infusion of rituximab.

The primary endpoint was positive antibody response against 12 pneumococcal subtypes common to the PCV13 and PCV23 vaccines at 6 months. At 6 months, the immune response to 0-3, 4-6, 7-9, or 10-12 serotypes was 83.3%, 13.3%, 3.3%, and 0%, respectively, in arm 1; 56.3%, 28.1%, 15.6%, and 0% in arm 2; and 60.6%, 33.3%, 6.1%, and 0% in arm 3.

No severe adverse events related to vaccination were observed in any of the groups; a total of eight AAV flares occurred in six patients (one in arm 1, two in arm 2, and three in arm 3). Local and systemic reactions occurred more frequently with the reinforced dose regimens, but these were mostly grade 1 or 2 local reactions.

The study was supported by the French Ministry of Health.

Some of the best clinical trials of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV) that were presented at the 21st International Vasculitis Workshop in Barcelona, Spain, included studies addressing relapse after stopping steroids, preventing relapse with abatacept, improving kidney function with plasma exchange, and vaccinating rituximab-treated patients.
 

Stopping Steroids After Remission in GPA

In the randomized, open-label TAPIR (The Assessment of Prednisone In Remission Trial) study of 159 adults with GPA in remission who had tapered to a prednisone dose of 5 mg/day, those who remained at that dosage had a significantly lower rate of relapse after 6 months than those who tapered to 0 mg/day (4.2% vs 15.5%; P = .227), according to results reported at the meeting.

However, use of a higher dose of prednisone for disease relapse by 6 months was similar for patients who used rituximab at baseline (8.8% with 0 mg/day vs 6.1% with 5 mg/day; P = .667), and the difference in this primary outcome was more pronounced among patients who did not take rituximab at baseline (20.0% with 0 mg/day vs 2.6% with 5 mg/day; P = .023).

A higher percentage of patients taking prednisone 0 mg/day had disease relapses that were considered minor (14.1% and 4.2%; P = .0391). Major relapses occurred in none of the patients taking 5 mg/day and in 1.4% receiving 0 mg/day. About 90% of patients in either treatment arm completed the trial.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskelatal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, was unique in that half of patients randomized in the study were enrolled at community clinics and half were enrolled at Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium clinical centers.
 

Abatacept Falls Short for Preventing Relapse in GPA

Adding abatacept to glucocorticoids failed to reduce risk of relapse, worsening disease, or failure to reach remission in adults with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, based on data from a randomized trial of 65 individuals.

In the 20-site, randomized, double-blind ABROGATE (Abatacept for the Treatment of Relapsing, Non-Severe, Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis) study, 34 patients received 125 mg subcutaneous abatacept once a week or a placebo in addition to 30 mg/day of prednisone that was tapered and discontinued after 12 weeks. Patients who were receiving methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide at baseline continued the medication at a stable dose.

The primary outcome of disease worsening or relapse occurred in 62% of the abatacept group and 68% of the placebo group, and no significant difference in treatment failure rate appeared between the groups. In addition, key secondary endpoints of time to full remission, duration of glucocorticoid-free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient-reported quality of life outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

A total of 112 adverse events occurred, with similar type and severity between the groups, including incidence of infections.

The findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, but the results suggest a need for further research to determine mechanisms of disease and explore additional novel treatments for this rare patient population, the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Plasma Exchange Improves Kidney Function in AAV

Use of therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) as an adjunct treatment improved early kidney function in adults with AAV and glomerulonephritis but did not extend beyond 8 weeks, and recovery of kidney function was no different between patients receiving a regular glucocorticoid regimen versus a reduced course, based on a post-hoc analysis of 691 individuals in the international randomized controlled trial called PEXIVAS.

The primary outcomes of change in kidney function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline over 1 year and the percentage of patients with improvement in eGFR of at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m² at weeks 12, 26, and 52.

The rate of improved eGFR was significantly greater in the PLEX group, compared with controls, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. At 4 weeks, significantly more patients in the PLEX group had an increase in eGFR by at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m², compared with the control group (relative risk [RR], 1.41; P = .008). In addition, improved kidney function within 4 weeks was significantly associated with lower risk of kidney failure within 1 year, regardless of treatment group.

The original PEXIVAS trial was supported by various government institutes and agencies from multiple countries.
 

Reinforced Vaccine Strategy with Rituximab Improved Antibody Response in AAV

A vaccine strategy consisting of a double dose of 13-valent antipneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at day 0 and day 7 followed by a single dose of 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) at 5 months significantly improved antibody responses against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with AAV, compared with standard treatment, based on data from 95 individuals in the multicenter, open-label study called PNEUMOVAS.

Adults with newly diagnosed AAV were randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: a standard regimen of one dose of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 1); a double dose of PCV13 at day 0 and day 7 with a dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 2); or four doses of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 3). These patients received PCV13 within 2 days before or after their first infusion of rituximab.

The primary endpoint was positive antibody response against 12 pneumococcal subtypes common to the PCV13 and PCV23 vaccines at 6 months. At 6 months, the immune response to 0-3, 4-6, 7-9, or 10-12 serotypes was 83.3%, 13.3%, 3.3%, and 0%, respectively, in arm 1; 56.3%, 28.1%, 15.6%, and 0% in arm 2; and 60.6%, 33.3%, 6.1%, and 0% in arm 3.

No severe adverse events related to vaccination were observed in any of the groups; a total of eight AAV flares occurred in six patients (one in arm 1, two in arm 2, and three in arm 3). Local and systemic reactions occurred more frequently with the reinforced dose regimens, but these were mostly grade 1 or 2 local reactions.

The study was supported by the French Ministry of Health.

Some of the best clinical trials of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV) that were presented at the 21st International Vasculitis Workshop in Barcelona, Spain, included studies addressing relapse after stopping steroids, preventing relapse with abatacept, improving kidney function with plasma exchange, and vaccinating rituximab-treated patients.
 

Stopping Steroids After Remission in GPA

In the randomized, open-label TAPIR (The Assessment of Prednisone In Remission Trial) study of 159 adults with GPA in remission who had tapered to a prednisone dose of 5 mg/day, those who remained at that dosage had a significantly lower rate of relapse after 6 months than those who tapered to 0 mg/day (4.2% vs 15.5%; P = .227), according to results reported at the meeting.

However, use of a higher dose of prednisone for disease relapse by 6 months was similar for patients who used rituximab at baseline (8.8% with 0 mg/day vs 6.1% with 5 mg/day; P = .667), and the difference in this primary outcome was more pronounced among patients who did not take rituximab at baseline (20.0% with 0 mg/day vs 2.6% with 5 mg/day; P = .023).

A higher percentage of patients taking prednisone 0 mg/day had disease relapses that were considered minor (14.1% and 4.2%; P = .0391). Major relapses occurred in none of the patients taking 5 mg/day and in 1.4% receiving 0 mg/day. About 90% of patients in either treatment arm completed the trial.

The study, funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskelatal and Skin Diseases and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, was unique in that half of patients randomized in the study were enrolled at community clinics and half were enrolled at Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium clinical centers.
 

Abatacept Falls Short for Preventing Relapse in GPA

Adding abatacept to glucocorticoids failed to reduce risk of relapse, worsening disease, or failure to reach remission in adults with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, based on data from a randomized trial of 65 individuals.

In the 20-site, randomized, double-blind ABROGATE (Abatacept for the Treatment of Relapsing, Non-Severe, Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis) study, 34 patients received 125 mg subcutaneous abatacept once a week or a placebo in addition to 30 mg/day of prednisone that was tapered and discontinued after 12 weeks. Patients who were receiving methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide at baseline continued the medication at a stable dose.

The primary outcome of disease worsening or relapse occurred in 62% of the abatacept group and 68% of the placebo group, and no significant difference in treatment failure rate appeared between the groups. In addition, key secondary endpoints of time to full remission, duration of glucocorticoid-free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient-reported quality of life outcomes were not significantly different between the groups.

A total of 112 adverse events occurred, with similar type and severity between the groups, including incidence of infections.

The findings were limited by the relatively small sample size, but the results suggest a need for further research to determine mechanisms of disease and explore additional novel treatments for this rare patient population, the researchers wrote in their abstract.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Plasma Exchange Improves Kidney Function in AAV

Use of therapeutic plasma exchange (PLEX) as an adjunct treatment improved early kidney function in adults with AAV and glomerulonephritis but did not extend beyond 8 weeks, and recovery of kidney function was no different between patients receiving a regular glucocorticoid regimen versus a reduced course, based on a post-hoc analysis of 691 individuals in the international randomized controlled trial called PEXIVAS.

The primary outcomes of change in kidney function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline over 1 year and the percentage of patients with improvement in eGFR of at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m² at weeks 12, 26, and 52.

The rate of improved eGFR was significantly greater in the PLEX group, compared with controls, at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. At 4 weeks, significantly more patients in the PLEX group had an increase in eGFR by at least 15 mL/min/1.73 m², compared with the control group (relative risk [RR], 1.41; P = .008). In addition, improved kidney function within 4 weeks was significantly associated with lower risk of kidney failure within 1 year, regardless of treatment group.

The original PEXIVAS trial was supported by various government institutes and agencies from multiple countries.
 

Reinforced Vaccine Strategy with Rituximab Improved Antibody Response in AAV

A vaccine strategy consisting of a double dose of 13-valent antipneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) at day 0 and day 7 followed by a single dose of 23-valent unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) at 5 months significantly improved antibody responses against Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with AAV, compared with standard treatment, based on data from 95 individuals in the multicenter, open-label study called PNEUMOVAS.

Adults with newly diagnosed AAV were randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: a standard regimen of one dose of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 1); a double dose of PCV13 at day 0 and day 7 with a dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 2); or four doses of PCV13 at day 0 and one dose of PPV23 at month 5 (arm 3). These patients received PCV13 within 2 days before or after their first infusion of rituximab.

The primary endpoint was positive antibody response against 12 pneumococcal subtypes common to the PCV13 and PCV23 vaccines at 6 months. At 6 months, the immune response to 0-3, 4-6, 7-9, or 10-12 serotypes was 83.3%, 13.3%, 3.3%, and 0%, respectively, in arm 1; 56.3%, 28.1%, 15.6%, and 0% in arm 2; and 60.6%, 33.3%, 6.1%, and 0% in arm 3.

No severe adverse events related to vaccination were observed in any of the groups; a total of eight AAV flares occurred in six patients (one in arm 1, two in arm 2, and three in arm 3). Local and systemic reactions occurred more frequently with the reinforced dose regimens, but these were mostly grade 1 or 2 local reactions.

The study was supported by the French Ministry of Health.

Large-scale salt substitution holds promise for reducing mortality with no elevated risk of serious harms, especially for older people at increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Australian researchers suggested.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds more evidence that broad adoption of potassium-rich salt substitutes for food preparation could have a significant effect on population health.

Although the supporting evidence was of low certainty, the analysis of 16 international randomized controlled trials of various interventions with 35,321 participants found salt substitution to be associated with an absolute reduction of 5 in 1000 in all-cause mortality (confidence interval, –3 to –7) and 3 in 1000 in CVD mortality (CI, –1 to –5).

Led by Hannah Greenwood, BPsychSc, a cardiovascular researcher at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Gold Coast, Queensland, the investigators also found very low certainty evidence of an absolute reduction of 8 in 1000 in major adverse cardiovascular events (CI, 0 to –15), with a 1 in 1000 decrease in more serious adverse events (CI, 4 to –2) in the same population.

Seven of the 16 studies were conducted in China and Taiwan and seven were conducted in populations of older age (mean age 62 years) and/or at higher cardiovascular risk.

With most of the data deriving from populations of older age at higher-than-average CV risk and/or eating an Asian diet, the findings’ generalizability to populations following a Western diet and/or at average CVD risk is limited, the researchers acknowledged.

“We are less certain about the effects in Western, younger, and healthy population groups,” corresponding author Loai Albarqouni, MD, MSc, PhD, assistant professor at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, said in an interview. “While we saw small, clinically meaningful reductions in cardiovascular deaths and events, effectiveness should be better established before salt substitutes are recommended more broadly, though they are promising.”

In addition, he said, since the longest follow-up of substitute use was 10 years, “we can’t speak to benefits or harms beyond this time frame.”

Bond University

University of Georgia

University of Sydney

Large-scale salt substitution holds promise for reducing mortality with no elevated risk of serious harms, especially for older people at increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Australian researchers suggested.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds more evidence that broad adoption of potassium-rich salt substitutes for food preparation could have a significant effect on population health.

Although the supporting evidence was of low certainty, the analysis of 16 international randomized controlled trials of various interventions with 35,321 participants found salt substitution to be associated with an absolute reduction of 5 in 1000 in all-cause mortality (confidence interval, –3 to –7) and 3 in 1000 in CVD mortality (CI, –1 to –5).

Led by Hannah Greenwood, BPsychSc, a cardiovascular researcher at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Gold Coast, Queensland, the investigators also found very low certainty evidence of an absolute reduction of 8 in 1000 in major adverse cardiovascular events (CI, 0 to –15), with a 1 in 1000 decrease in more serious adverse events (CI, 4 to –2) in the same population.

Seven of the 16 studies were conducted in China and Taiwan and seven were conducted in populations of older age (mean age 62 years) and/or at higher cardiovascular risk.

With most of the data deriving from populations of older age at higher-than-average CV risk and/or eating an Asian diet, the findings’ generalizability to populations following a Western diet and/or at average CVD risk is limited, the researchers acknowledged.

“We are less certain about the effects in Western, younger, and healthy population groups,” corresponding author Loai Albarqouni, MD, MSc, PhD, assistant professor at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, said in an interview. “While we saw small, clinically meaningful reductions in cardiovascular deaths and events, effectiveness should be better established before salt substitutes are recommended more broadly, though they are promising.”

In addition, he said, since the longest follow-up of substitute use was 10 years, “we can’t speak to benefits or harms beyond this time frame.”

Bond University

University of Georgia

University of Sydney

Large-scale salt substitution holds promise for reducing mortality with no elevated risk of serious harms, especially for older people at increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Australian researchers suggested.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds more evidence that broad adoption of potassium-rich salt substitutes for food preparation could have a significant effect on population health.

Although the supporting evidence was of low certainty, the analysis of 16 international randomized controlled trials of various interventions with 35,321 participants found salt substitution to be associated with an absolute reduction of 5 in 1000 in all-cause mortality (confidence interval, –3 to –7) and 3 in 1000 in CVD mortality (CI, –1 to –5).

Led by Hannah Greenwood, BPsychSc, a cardiovascular researcher at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare at Bond University in Gold Coast, Queensland, the investigators also found very low certainty evidence of an absolute reduction of 8 in 1000 in major adverse cardiovascular events (CI, 0 to –15), with a 1 in 1000 decrease in more serious adverse events (CI, 4 to –2) in the same population.

Seven of the 16 studies were conducted in China and Taiwan and seven were conducted in populations of older age (mean age 62 years) and/or at higher cardiovascular risk.

With most of the data deriving from populations of older age at higher-than-average CV risk and/or eating an Asian diet, the findings’ generalizability to populations following a Western diet and/or at average CVD risk is limited, the researchers acknowledged.

“We are less certain about the effects in Western, younger, and healthy population groups,” corresponding author Loai Albarqouni, MD, MSc, PhD, assistant professor at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, said in an interview. “While we saw small, clinically meaningful reductions in cardiovascular deaths and events, effectiveness should be better established before salt substitutes are recommended more broadly, though they are promising.”

In addition, he said, since the longest follow-up of substitute use was 10 years, “we can’t speak to benefits or harms beyond this time frame.”

Bond University

University of Georgia

University of Sydney

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both labial and parotid salivary glands can be used for the diagnosis of Sjögren syndrome (SjS), as their biopsies show largely similar histopathologic features in patients with sicca complaints suspected of having SjS.

METHODOLOGY:

• While a labial gland biopsy is the conventional method for diagnosing SjS, a biopsy of the parotid gland is preferable, as it allows for repeat measurements and increases the possibility of finding a mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma.
• In this prospective study, researchers compared the focus score (FS) and other histopathologic features of SjS between paired labial and parotid salivary gland biopsies in a diagnostic cohort of patients with sicca suspected of having SjS.
• Labial and parotid gland biopsies were simultaneously obtained under local infiltration anesthesia in 99 patients with oral and/or ocular sicca complaints at the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, between 2014 and 2017.
• FS is defined as the number of foci per 4 mm2 of salivary gland tissue. An FS ≥ 1 indicates a positive diagnosis of SjS.
• On the basis of an expert opinion of three experienced rheumatologists, 36 patients were diagnosed with SjS, and 63 were diagnosed with non-SjS sicca.

TAKEAWAY:

• The absolute agreement of various histopathologic features was high between labial and parotid biopsies, with values being 80% for FS, 89% for germinal centers, 84% for the immunoglobulin (Ig) A/IgG plasma cell shift, and 93% for pre-lymphoepithelial lesions.
• However, an FS ≥ 1 was more frequently seen in labial glands than in parotid glands (P = .012) in both the SjS and non-SjS sicca populations, indicating that labial gland biopsies show more inflammation irrespective of the presence of SjS.
• In patients with SjS, the absolute B-lymphocyte count, the number of germinal centers per mm², and the severity of pre-lymphoepithelial lesions were higher in parotid glands than in labial glands, revealing evident histopathologic signs of B-lymphocyte hyperactivity.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study offer novel insights into the pathophysiology of pSS [primary Sjögren syndrome] and can be incorporated into guidelines for the histopathological analysis of salivary gland biopsies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Uzma Nakshbandi, MD, Department of Reumatology & Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, was published online in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not discuss any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One of the authors disclosed serving as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving speaker’s fees from some of them.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both labial and parotid salivary glands can be used for the diagnosis of Sjögren syndrome (SjS), as their biopsies show largely similar histopathologic features in patients with sicca complaints suspected of having SjS.

METHODOLOGY:

• While a labial gland biopsy is the conventional method for diagnosing SjS, a biopsy of the parotid gland is preferable, as it allows for repeat measurements and increases the possibility of finding a mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma.
• In this prospective study, researchers compared the focus score (FS) and other histopathologic features of SjS between paired labial and parotid salivary gland biopsies in a diagnostic cohort of patients with sicca suspected of having SjS.
• Labial and parotid gland biopsies were simultaneously obtained under local infiltration anesthesia in 99 patients with oral and/or ocular sicca complaints at the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, between 2014 and 2017.
• FS is defined as the number of foci per 4 mm2 of salivary gland tissue. An FS ≥ 1 indicates a positive diagnosis of SjS.
• On the basis of an expert opinion of three experienced rheumatologists, 36 patients were diagnosed with SjS, and 63 were diagnosed with non-SjS sicca.

TAKEAWAY:

• The absolute agreement of various histopathologic features was high between labial and parotid biopsies, with values being 80% for FS, 89% for germinal centers, 84% for the immunoglobulin (Ig) A/IgG plasma cell shift, and 93% for pre-lymphoepithelial lesions.
• However, an FS ≥ 1 was more frequently seen in labial glands than in parotid glands (P = .012) in both the SjS and non-SjS sicca populations, indicating that labial gland biopsies show more inflammation irrespective of the presence of SjS.
• In patients with SjS, the absolute B-lymphocyte count, the number of germinal centers per mm², and the severity of pre-lymphoepithelial lesions were higher in parotid glands than in labial glands, revealing evident histopathologic signs of B-lymphocyte hyperactivity.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study offer novel insights into the pathophysiology of pSS [primary Sjögren syndrome] and can be incorporated into guidelines for the histopathological analysis of salivary gland biopsies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Uzma Nakshbandi, MD, Department of Reumatology & Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, was published online in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not discuss any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One of the authors disclosed serving as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving speaker’s fees from some of them.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both labial and parotid salivary glands can be used for the diagnosis of Sjögren syndrome (SjS), as their biopsies show largely similar histopathologic features in patients with sicca complaints suspected of having SjS.

METHODOLOGY:

• While a labial gland biopsy is the conventional method for diagnosing SjS, a biopsy of the parotid gland is preferable, as it allows for repeat measurements and increases the possibility of finding a mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma.
• In this prospective study, researchers compared the focus score (FS) and other histopathologic features of SjS between paired labial and parotid salivary gland biopsies in a diagnostic cohort of patients with sicca suspected of having SjS.
• Labial and parotid gland biopsies were simultaneously obtained under local infiltration anesthesia in 99 patients with oral and/or ocular sicca complaints at the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, between 2014 and 2017.
• FS is defined as the number of foci per 4 mm2 of salivary gland tissue. An FS ≥ 1 indicates a positive diagnosis of SjS.
• On the basis of an expert opinion of three experienced rheumatologists, 36 patients were diagnosed with SjS, and 63 were diagnosed with non-SjS sicca.

TAKEAWAY:

• The absolute agreement of various histopathologic features was high between labial and parotid biopsies, with values being 80% for FS, 89% for germinal centers, 84% for the immunoglobulin (Ig) A/IgG plasma cell shift, and 93% for pre-lymphoepithelial lesions.
• However, an FS ≥ 1 was more frequently seen in labial glands than in parotid glands (P = .012) in both the SjS and non-SjS sicca populations, indicating that labial gland biopsies show more inflammation irrespective of the presence of SjS.
• In patients with SjS, the absolute B-lymphocyte count, the number of germinal centers per mm², and the severity of pre-lymphoepithelial lesions were higher in parotid glands than in labial glands, revealing evident histopathologic signs of B-lymphocyte hyperactivity.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this study offer novel insights into the pathophysiology of pSS [primary Sjögren syndrome] and can be incorporated into guidelines for the histopathological analysis of salivary gland biopsies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Uzma Nakshbandi, MD, Department of Reumatology & Clinical Immunology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, was published online in Rheumatology (Oxford).

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not discuss any limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. One of the authors disclosed serving as a consultant and scientific advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies, as well as receiving speaker’s fees from some of them.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.

Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.

Not So Fast

Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.

Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.

The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.

A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.

On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.

The risk for metabolic changes and eventual development of T2D also appear to be linked to how quickly food is consumed.

Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.

However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.

A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.

This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.

Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”

The Ideal Time to Eat

It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.

“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”

A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.

Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.

A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.

Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.

A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.

A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.

Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions

Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.

“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.

Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.

“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”

Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.

“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”

Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.

A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.

Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.

“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.

Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.

Not So Fast

Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.

Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.

The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.

A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.

On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.

The risk for metabolic changes and eventual development of T2D also appear to be linked to how quickly food is consumed.

Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.

However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.

A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.

This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.

Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”

The Ideal Time to Eat

It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.

“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”

A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.

Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.

A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.

Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.

A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.

A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.

Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions

Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.

“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.

Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.

“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”

Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.

“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”

Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.

A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.

Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.

“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You are what you eat, as the adage goes. But a growing body of evidence indicates that it’s not just what and how much you eat that influence your health. How fast and when you eat also play a role.

Research now indicates that these two factors may affect the risk for gastrointestinal problems, obesity, and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Because meal timing and speed of consumption are modifiable, they present new opportunities to change patient behavior to help prevent and perhaps address these conditions.

Not So Fast

Most people are well acquainted with the short-term gastrointestinal effects of eating too quickly, which include indigestion, gas, bloating, and nausea. But regularly eating too fast can cause long-term consequences.

Obtaining a sense of fullness is key to staving off overeating and excess caloric intake. However, it takes approximately 20 minutes for the stomach to alert the brain to feelings of fullness. Eat too quickly and the fullness signaling might not set in until you’ve consumed more calories than intended. Research links this habit to excess body weight.

The practice also can lead to gastrointestinal diseases over the long term because overeating causes food to remain in the stomach longer, thus prolonging the time that the gastric mucosa is exposed to gastric acids.

A study of 10,893 adults in Korea reported that those with the fastest eating speed (< 5 min/meal) had a 1.7 times greater likelihood of endoscopic erosive gastritis than those with the slowest times (≥ 15 min/meal). Faster eating also was linked to increased risk for functional dyspepsia in a study involving 89 young-adult female military cadets in Korea with relatively controlled eating patterns.

On the extreme end of the spectrum, researchers who performed an assessment of a competitive speed eater speculated that the observed physiological accommodation required for the role (expanding the stomach to form a large flaccid sac) makes speed eaters vulnerable to morbid obesity, gastroparesis, intractable nausea and vomiting, and the need for gastrectomy.

The risk for metabolic changes and eventual development of T2D also appear to be linked to how quickly food is consumed.

Two clinical studies conducted in Japan — a cohort study of 2050 male factory workers and a nationwide study with 197,825 participants — identified a significant association between faster eating and T2D and insulin resistance. A case-control study involving 234 patients with new onset T2D and 468 controls from Lithuania linked faster eating to a greater than twofold risk for T2D. And a Chinese cross-sectional study of 7972 adults indicated that faster eating significantly increased the risk for metabolic syndrome, elevated blood pressure, and central obesity in adults.

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain why fast eating may upset metabolic processes, including a delayed sense of fullness contributing to spiking postprandial glucose levels, lack of time for mastication causing higher glucose concentrations, and the triggering of specific cytokines (eg, interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-6) that lead to insulin resistance. It is also possible that the association is the result of people who eat quickly having relatively higher body weights, which translates to a higher risk for T2D.

However, there’s an opportunity in the association of rapid meal consumption with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases, as people can slow the speed at which they eat so they feel full before they overeat.

A 2019 study in which 21 participants were instructed to eat a 600-kcal meal at a “normal” or “slow” pace (6 minutes or 24 minutes) found that the latter group reported feeling fuller while consuming fewer calories.

This approach may not work for all patients, however. There’s evidence to suggest that tactics to slow down eating may not limit the energy intake of those who are already overweight or obese.

Patients with obesity may physiologically differ in their processing of food, according to Michael Camilleri, MD, consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“We have demonstrated that about 20%-25% of people with obesity actually have rapid gastric emptying,” he told this news organization. “As a result, they don’t feel full after they eat a meal and that might impact the total volume of food that they eat before they really feel full.”

The Ideal Time to Eat

It’s not only the speed at which individuals eat that may influence outcomes but when they take their meals. Research indicates that eating earlier in the day to align meals with the body’s circadian rhythms in metabolism offers health benefits.

“The focus would be to eat a meal that syncs during those daytime hours,” Collin Popp, PhD, MS, RD, a research scientist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, told this news organization. “I typically suggest patients have their largest meal in the morning, whether that’s a large or medium-sized breakfast, or a big lunch.”

A recent cross-sectional study of 2050 participants found that having the largest meal at lunch protected against obesity (odds ratio [OR], 0.71), whereas having it at dinner increased the risk for obesity (OR, 1.67) and led to higher body mass index.

Consuming the majority of calories in meals earlier in the day may have metabolic health benefits, as well.

A 2015 randomized controlled trial involving 18 adults with obesity and T2D found that eating a high-energy breakfast and a low-energy dinner leads to reduced hyperglycemia throughout the day compared with eating a low-energy breakfast and a high-energy dinner.

Time-restricted eating (TRE), a form of intermittent fasting, also can improve metabolic health depending on the time of day.

A 2023 meta-analysis found that TRE was more effective at reducing fasting glucose levels in participants who were overweight and obese if done earlier rather than later in the day. Similarly, a 2022 study involving 82 healthy patients without diabetes or obesity found that early TRE was more effective than mid-day TRE at improving insulin sensitivity and that it improved fasting glucose and reduced total body mass and adiposity, while mid-day TRE did not.

A study that analyzed the effects of TRE in eight adult men with overweight and prediabetes found “better insulin resistance when the window of food consumption was earlier in the day,» noted endocrinologist Beverly Tchang, MD, an assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine with a focus on obesity medication.

Patients May Benefit From Behavioral Interventions

Patients potentially negatively affected by eating too quickly or at late hours may benefit from adopting behavioral interventions to address these tendencies. To determine if a patient is a candidate for such interventions, Dr. Popp recommends starting with a simple conversation.

“When I first meet patients, I always ask them to describe to me a typical day for how they eat — when they’re eating, what they’re eating, the food quality, who are they with — to see if there’s social aspects to it. Then try and make the recommendations based on that,” said Dr. Popp, whose work focuses on biobehavioral interventions for the treatment and prevention of obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic outcomes.

Dr. Tchang said she encourages her patients to be mindful of hunger and fullness cues.

“Eat if you’re hungry; don’t force yourself to eat if you’re not hungry,” she said. “If you’re not sure whether you’re hungry or not, speak to a doctor because this points to an abnormality in your appetite-regulation system, which can be helped with GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] receptor agonists.”

Adjusting what patients eat can help them improve their meal timing.

“For example, we know that a high-fiber diet or a diet that has a large amount of fat in it tends to empty from the stomach slower,” Dr. Camilleri said. “That might give a sensation of fullness that lasts longer and that might prevent, for instance, the ingestion of the next meal.”

Those trying to eat more slowly are advised to seek out foods that are hard in texture and minimally processed.

A study involving 50 patients with healthy weights found that hard foods are consumed more slowly than soft foods and that energy intake is lowest with hard, minimally processed foods. Combining hard-textured foods with explicit instructions to reduce eating speed has also been shown to be an effective strategy. For those inclined to seek out technology-based solution, evidence suggests that a self-monitoring wearable device can slow the eating rate.

Although the evidence is mounting that the timing and duration of meals have an impact on certain chronic diseases, clinicians should remember that these two factors are far from the most important contributors, Dr. Popp said.

“We also have to consider total caloric intake, food quality, sleep, alcohol use, smoking, and physical activity,” he said. “Meal timing should be considered as under the umbrella of health that is important for a lot of folks.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the launch of the first clinical trial for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in children with systemic lupus erythematosus.

The trial, called Reversing Autoimmunity through Cell Therapy (REACT-01), will take place at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington State and is expected to begin this summer.

The CAR-T therapy will target CD19 positive B-cells, an approach that has had promising results in a small number of adult patients. While the FDA has approved a number of clinical trials using CAR-T therapy to treat autoimmune diseases in adults, this is the first authorization for a CAR T-cell therapy trial to treat autoimmune disease in children.

REACT-01 will enroll 12 individuals under 18 years of age, Shaun W. Jackson, MD, PhD, the principal investigator of the trial and attending physician in Pediatric Nephrology and Pediatric Rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told this news organization. 

The trial will be initiated in separate phases, using three age cohorts. The first phase will enroll three individuals aged at least 17 years, before moving to the second phase and enrolling three individuals aged 12-17 years. Then, phase 3 will also include children aged 5-12 years.

To be eligible for the trial, participants must have failed at least two standard immunosuppressive therapies as well as have evidence of active lupus disease affecting a major organ system, such as the heart, lungs, and kidneys.

“Seattle Children’s Hospital will be the only site for this study, although patients can travel to Seattle to receive the therapy and then return back to their primary center for ongoing care,” Dr. Jackson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the launch of the first clinical trial for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in children with systemic lupus erythematosus.

The trial, called Reversing Autoimmunity through Cell Therapy (REACT-01), will take place at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington State and is expected to begin this summer.

The CAR-T therapy will target CD19 positive B-cells, an approach that has had promising results in a small number of adult patients. While the FDA has approved a number of clinical trials using CAR-T therapy to treat autoimmune diseases in adults, this is the first authorization for a CAR T-cell therapy trial to treat autoimmune disease in children.

REACT-01 will enroll 12 individuals under 18 years of age, Shaun W. Jackson, MD, PhD, the principal investigator of the trial and attending physician in Pediatric Nephrology and Pediatric Rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told this news organization. 

The trial will be initiated in separate phases, using three age cohorts. The first phase will enroll three individuals aged at least 17 years, before moving to the second phase and enrolling three individuals aged 12-17 years. Then, phase 3 will also include children aged 5-12 years.

To be eligible for the trial, participants must have failed at least two standard immunosuppressive therapies as well as have evidence of active lupus disease affecting a major organ system, such as the heart, lungs, and kidneys.

“Seattle Children’s Hospital will be the only site for this study, although patients can travel to Seattle to receive the therapy and then return back to their primary center for ongoing care,” Dr. Jackson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the launch of the first clinical trial for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in children with systemic lupus erythematosus.

The trial, called Reversing Autoimmunity through Cell Therapy (REACT-01), will take place at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington State and is expected to begin this summer.

The CAR-T therapy will target CD19 positive B-cells, an approach that has had promising results in a small number of adult patients. While the FDA has approved a number of clinical trials using CAR-T therapy to treat autoimmune diseases in adults, this is the first authorization for a CAR T-cell therapy trial to treat autoimmune disease in children.

REACT-01 will enroll 12 individuals under 18 years of age, Shaun W. Jackson, MD, PhD, the principal investigator of the trial and attending physician in Pediatric Nephrology and Pediatric Rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told this news organization. 

The trial will be initiated in separate phases, using three age cohorts. The first phase will enroll three individuals aged at least 17 years, before moving to the second phase and enrolling three individuals aged 12-17 years. Then, phase 3 will also include children aged 5-12 years.

To be eligible for the trial, participants must have failed at least two standard immunosuppressive therapies as well as have evidence of active lupus disease affecting a major organ system, such as the heart, lungs, and kidneys.

“Seattle Children’s Hospital will be the only site for this study, although patients can travel to Seattle to receive the therapy and then return back to their primary center for ongoing care,” Dr. Jackson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”