MDedge Surgery

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

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

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

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

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

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

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

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

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

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

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.

Sham peer reviews can be used to attack a doctor for unrelated professional, personal, or nonmedical reasons; intimidate, silence, or target a physician; or to carry out a personal vendetta. They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.

Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.

This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.

“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”

“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.

The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.

“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”

Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.

“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.

After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.

The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.

“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.

York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.

“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
 

If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review

Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”

Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”

Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”

Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.

Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.

“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”

Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.

“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

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

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Only 12% of the nurses providing patient care at hospitals and health clinics today are men. Although the percentage of nurses has increased — men made up just 2.7% of nurses in 1970 — nursing is still considered a “pink collar” profession, a female-dominated field.

“We’ve made strides over the last couple of decades, but [the number of men pursuing nursing careers] is leveling out,” said Jason Dunne, DNP, MSN, RN, chief academic officer at the Arizona College of Nursing, Phoenix. “There continues to be persistent gender stereotypes that [have] discouraged men from entering the profession.”

A nationwide nursing shortage has led to increased efforts to attract more men to the profession and ensure that men in nursing feel valued and supported and want to continue their careers long term.

“The nursing shortage is very real,” Dunne said. “We need to be highly focused on the shortage and look at opportunities to bring diversity into the profession, and one big way to solve it is bringing more men into nursing.”
 

Representation Matters

Colleges recognize the need to diversify their nursing student population and have turned their attention to increasing the number of men attending informational sessions and career days. Dunne believes, “There is a general lack of awareness of nursing as a career choice [for men].”

The Nursing Consortium of Florida hosts a “Day in the Life of a Nurse” program to introduce high school students to nursing careers, and the University of Virginia School of Nursing invites male nursing students to speak at educational events to promote workforce diversity.

“When I was growing up, the males wouldn’t have been included in those sessions,” said Melissa Gilbert Gomes, PhD, APRN, PMHNP-BC, FNAP, FAAN, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia. “It was nice to see their interest and to have a male student there for them to ask questions and to help them see that this could be a place for them.”

Nursing schools have also engaged in other efforts to encourage more men to consider nursing careers, from highlighting male nurses in marketing materials and engaging with men at career fairs to updating course curriculum to include content on men’s health and connecting male nursing students with men in nursing faculty or clinical settings.

Focusing on nursing as a lucrative career choice could also attract more men to the profession. On average, male registered nurses (RNs) make $7300 per year more than their female counterparts due to the gender pay gap. The median wage for male RNs in acute care, cardiology, and perioperative specialties is $90,000 annually.

At the University of Virginia School of Nursing, which the American Association for Men in Nursing (AAMN) named “Best School for Men in Nursing” in 2023, 20% of nursing students are men.

The school has a Men Advancing Nursing club and is in the process of chartering a new AAMN chapter. The goal, according to Gomes, is to create an environment where male nursing students feel represented and supported.

“Valuing the perspective that men bring [to nursing] is important,” she said. “Coming together [and] having that camaraderie and intrinsic motivation to specifically speak to areas that impact men ... is important.”
 

Promoting Patient Care

Highlighting the diversity of career options within the nursing profession is also essential. RNs can pursue careers in specialties ranging from pediatrics, orthopedics, and occupational health to anesthesia, cardiology, and nephrology. The specialty with the highest number of male RNs tends to be acute care, which encompasses emergency/trauma and medical-surgical.

John Schmidt, DNP, MSN, BSN, faculty member and program lead for the acute care nurse practitioner program at Purdue Global School of Nursing, refers to these specialties as having a high excitement factor.

“Men gravitate to nursing to help people,” he said. “In critical care, there is instant gratification. You see patients get better. It’s the same in the [intensive care unit] and the emergency department. We take care of them and can see how we made a difference.”

When hospitals and health systems create environments that support men in nursing, patients also benefit. Research shows that patients often prefer nurses of the same gender, and a more diverse healthcare workforce has been linked to improved patient outcomes. Reducing gender inequities among nursing staff could also improve job satisfaction and retention rates for men in nursing.

“When you’re in a vulnerable space as a patient ... it’s important to know that your care provider understands you [and] having men as nurses is a part of that,” said Gomes. “Even though patients might not be used to having a male nurse at the bedside, once they have the experience, it challenges preconceived notions [and] that connection is important.”

Hospitals must proactively support men in nursing to achieve the benefits of greater gender diversity in the nursing workforce. Male nurses have fewer role models and report higher levels of loneliness, isolation, and role strain.

Groups such as NYC Men in Nursing and mentorship programs such as Men in Nursing at RUSH University College of Nursing and RUSH University Medical Center, and the North Carolina Healthcare Association Diverse Healthcare Leaders Mentorship Program were designed to provide coaching, education, and networking opportunities and connect men in nursing.

Male nurses, Dunne added, must be role models and must take the lead in changing the conversations about gender roles in nursing. Establishing support systems and mentorship opportunities is instrumental in inspiring men to pursue nursing careers and creating visibility into the profession and “would create a level of parity for men in the profession and encourage them to want to stay in nursing as a long-term career.”

He told this news organization that creating scholarships for men enrolled in nursing school, increasing the involvement of male nurse leaders in recruitment efforts, and updating curriculum to ensure men are reflected in the materials is also essential.

“We’ve got to be willing and open to having the conversations to end the stereotypes that have plagued the profession,” said Dunne. “And we’ve got to push men in nursing to be front and center so folks see that there are opportunities for men in nursing.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. 

In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.

Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.

“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”

Charlotte Dahl, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle Hospital

The PROHIP Study

THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived. 

The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training. 

Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.

However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged. 
 

Design and Study Population

The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points. 

After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years. 

The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group. 

Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization. 

The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction. 
 

‘Reassuring’ Results

In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”

THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.

Dr. Palmer

Resistance Training Role 

A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.

This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy. 

It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.

Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
 

Authors’ View

The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”

Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors. 

Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.

“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said. 

“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.

The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

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

For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. 

In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.

Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.

“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”

Charlotte Dahl, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle Hospital

The PROHIP Study

THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived. 

The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training. 

Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.

However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged. 
 

Design and Study Population

The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points. 

After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years. 

The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group. 

Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization. 

The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction. 
 

‘Reassuring’ Results

In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”

THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.

Dr. Palmer

Resistance Training Role 

A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.

This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy. 

It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.

Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
 

Authors’ View

The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”

Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors. 

Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.

“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said. 

“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.

The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

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

For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. 

In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.

Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.

“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”

Charlotte Dahl, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle Hospital

The PROHIP Study

THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived. 

The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training. 

Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.

However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged. 
 

Design and Study Population

The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points. 

After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years. 

The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group. 

Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization. 

The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction. 
 

‘Reassuring’ Results

In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”

THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.

Dr. Palmer

Resistance Training Role 

A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.

This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy. 

It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.

Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
 

Authors’ View

The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”

Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors. 

Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.

“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said. 

“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.

The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

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

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.