Business of Medicine

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I don’t recommend ice baths. Perhaps I should. On my podcast-filled commute, I am reminded for miles of the mental and physical benefits of this revolutionary wellness routine: Cold exposure causes a spike in adrenaline and raises your baseline dopamine, thereby giving you superhuman focus and energy. Goodbye procrastination! Eliminate your ADHD in one icy step! I’m trying to be the fashionable mustached-columnist here so maybe I should get on board.

In fact, a heavyset, similarly-mustached 32-year-old patient just asked if I do ice baths. It was meant as a compliment, I believe. Displaying poise wearing my Chief of Dermatology embroidered white coat in my toddler-art-adorned office, I could hear him thinking: “This doc is legit. On fleek.” (Note, this is an approximation and the patient’s actual thoughts may have varied). We were talking podcasts and he was curious about my daily routine.

Kaiser Permanente

Now, ice baths probably do have the benefits that Andrew Huberman, Joe Rogan, and the others have described, I don’t argue. And the experience is oft described as invigorating with a runner’s high-like euphoria that follows a good dunk. I’ve tried it. I would describe it as “very uncomfortable.” To boot, following icy-cold morning showers, I wasn’t any better able to stave off opening my New York Times app on a newsy day. No, cold water isn’t my jams. But then again, I don’t journal like Marcus Aurelius or sleep on a mattress that keeps my body a chill 97 degrees like an inverse sous vide. If I were asked by Huberman in an interview what I do to be mentally strong, I’d answer, “I clean the pool.”

“Here’s how I do it, Dr. Huberman,” I’d say. “First, open the pool cover. Then with a cup with pool water from about 12 inches down, fill these little beakers with water and add a few drops of chemical reagents. Then calculate the ounces of calcium hypochlorite, muriatic acid, and other chemicals to make your pools sparkle. After skimming, take your pool brush and brush the bottom and sides of your pool. Rack your equipment when done and close the cover back up. This exercise takes about 15 minutes.” It’s a mundane task, but ah, there’s the point. Like folding the laundry, weeding the garden, emptying the dishwasher, they can be oh, so gratifying. Each of these has a crisp beginning and end and offer a lovely spot to be present. Let the thoughts flow with each stroke of the brush. Watch the water ripple the surface as you slowly pull the long pole out, dripping 7.4 pH water as you glide it in for the next pass. This is the Benabio secret to success.

Dr. Benabio

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

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

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

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

In most Western countries, professional standards dictate that physicians should practice medicine with compassion. Patients also expect compassionate care from physicians because it represents a model capable of providing greater patient satisfaction, fostering better doctor-patient relationships, and enabling better psychological states among patients.

The etymology of the term “compassion” derives from the Latin roots “com,” meaning “together with,” and “pati,” meaning “to endure or suffer.” When discussing compassion, it is necessary to distinguish it from empathy, a term generally used to refer to cognitive or emotional processes in which the perspective of the other (in this case, the patient) is taken. Compassion implies or requires empathy and includes the desire to help or alleviate the suffering of others. Compassion in the medical context is likely a specific instance of a more complex adaptive system that has evolved, not only among humans, to motivate recognition and assistance when others suffer.
 

Compassion Fatigue

Physicians’ compassion is expected by patients and the profession. It is fundamental for effective clinical practice. Although compassion is central to medical practice, most research related to the topic has focused on “compassion fatigue,” which is understood as a specific type of professional burnout, as if physicians had a limited reserve of compassion that dwindles or becomes exhausted with use or overuse. This is one aspect of a much more complex problem, in which compassion represents the endpoint of a dynamic process that encompasses the influences of the physician, the patient, the clinic, and the institution.

Compassion Capacity: Conditioning Factors

Chronic exposure of physicians to conflicting work demands may be associated with the depletion of their psychological resources and, consequently, emotional and cognitive fatigue that can contribute to poorer work outcomes, including the ability to express compassion.

Rates of professional burnout in medicine are increasing. The driving factors of this phenomenon are largely rooted in organizations and healthcare systems and include excessive workloads, inefficient work processes, administrative burdens, and lack of input or control by physicians regarding issues concerning their work life. The outcome often is early retirement of physicians, a current, increasingly widespread phenomenon and a critical issue not only for the Italian National Health Service but also for other healthcare systems worldwide.
 

Organizational and Personal Values

There is no clear empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that working in healthcare environments experienced as discrepant with one’s own values has negative effects on key professional outcomes. However, a study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine highlighted the overall negative effect of misalignment between system values and physicians’ personal values, including impaired ability to provide compassionate care, as well as reduced job satisfaction, burnout, absenteeism, and considering the possibility of early retirement. Results from 1000 surveyed professionals indicate that physicians’ subjective competence in providing compassionate care may remain high, but their ability to express it is compromised. From data analysis, the authors hypothesize that when working in environments with discrepant values, occupational contingencies may repeatedly require physicians to set aside their personal values, which can lead them to refrain from using available skills to keep their performance in line with organizational requirements.

These results and hypotheses are not consistent with the notion of compassion fatigue as a reflection of the cost of care resulting from exposure to repeated suffering. Previous evidence shows that expressing compassion in healthcare facilitates greater understanding, suggesting that providing compassion does not impoverish physicians but rather supports them in the effectiveness of interventions and in their satisfaction.

In summary, this study suggests that what prevents compassion is the inability to provide it when hindered by factors related to the situation in which the physician operates. Improving compassion does not simply depend on motivating individual professionals to be more compassionate or on promoting fundamental skills, but probably on the creation of organizational and clinical conditions in which physician compassion can thrive.

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

An article in the March 20 JAMA Network Open looked into the use of AI for responding to patient emails. Basically, they found that this led to a reduction in physician burden, but didn’t save any time.

1. Not sure that’s worth the trouble.

2. Unless the AI is simply responding with something like “message received, thank you” I don’t think this is a good idea.

Yeah, we’re all stretched for time, I understand that. From the starting gun each morning we’re racing between patients, phone calls, incoming test results, staff questions, drug reps, sample closets, dictations, and a million other things.

But AI needs to be a lot better before I let it handle patient questions and concerns.

Someday, yeah, maybe it can do this, like 2-1B, the surgical droid that replaced Luke’s hand in “The Empire Strikes Back.” But we’re not even close to that. Just because a log-in screen says “Jumping to Hyperspace” doesn’t mean you’re on the Millennium Falcon.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

An article in the March 20 JAMA Network Open looked into the use of AI for responding to patient emails. Basically, they found that this led to a reduction in physician burden, but didn’t save any time.

1. Not sure that’s worth the trouble.

2. Unless the AI is simply responding with something like “message received, thank you” I don’t think this is a good idea.

Yeah, we’re all stretched for time, I understand that. From the starting gun each morning we’re racing between patients, phone calls, incoming test results, staff questions, drug reps, sample closets, dictations, and a million other things.

But AI needs to be a lot better before I let it handle patient questions and concerns.

Someday, yeah, maybe it can do this, like 2-1B, the surgical droid that replaced Luke’s hand in “The Empire Strikes Back.” But we’re not even close to that. Just because a log-in screen says “Jumping to Hyperspace” doesn’t mean you’re on the Millennium Falcon.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

An article in the March 20 JAMA Network Open looked into the use of AI for responding to patient emails. Basically, they found that this led to a reduction in physician burden, but didn’t save any time.

1. Not sure that’s worth the trouble.

2. Unless the AI is simply responding with something like “message received, thank you” I don’t think this is a good idea.

Yeah, we’re all stretched for time, I understand that. From the starting gun each morning we’re racing between patients, phone calls, incoming test results, staff questions, drug reps, sample closets, dictations, and a million other things.

But AI needs to be a lot better before I let it handle patient questions and concerns.

Someday, yeah, maybe it can do this, like 2-1B, the surgical droid that replaced Luke’s hand in “The Empire Strikes Back.” But we’re not even close to that. Just because a log-in screen says “Jumping to Hyperspace” doesn’t mean you’re on the Millennium Falcon.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid rising concern about the potential long-term costs of using glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists to treat obesity, some insurers are making access to bariatric surgery easier.

While the relationship may not be entirely causal, data do suggest that at least for now, these new agents for treating obesity including semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound) are not cost-effective, whereas the surgery is.

According to GoodRx, Wegovy (semaglutide) has a list price of about $1350 for a 28-day supply. And the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) said that the average cost of bariatric surgery ranges between $17,000 and $26,000. But ASMBS added that third-party payers will recover those costs within 2-4 years due to reduction or elimination of obesity-related conditions and associated treatment costs, with an approximate 29% healthcare cost reduction at 5 years.

Recently, for example, Geisinger Health of Pennsylvania and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts expanded body mass index (BMI) eligibility for bariatric surgery procedures, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan dropped prior authorization requirements for several services, including bariatric surgery.

While most major health insurers cover Wegovy for obesity treatment, they typically require prior authorization and/or trials of other therapies first. Recently, some employers have denied coverage for the medications for treating obesity. Medicare does not cover these drugs. Coverage varies across state Medicaid plans.

“For years, insurers…have played games with the surgery, making people jump through hoops, hoping that they would just give up and go away. And now that health plans are getting concerned about [the cost of] drugs for obesity, and they’re getting so much attention, they’re thinking oh, maybe we shouldn’t be playing these games anymore,” obesity policy expert Ted Kyle, RPh, founder of ConscienHealth, told this news organization.

However, Christopher Doubet Still, DO, director of Nutrition and Weight Management at Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that Geisinger Health Plan’s change in May 2023 to lower the BMI surgery eligibility cutoff from 35 kg/m2 to 30 kg/m2 for people with comorbidities was not related to the cost of GLP-1 drugs.

“To date, bariatric surgery remains the most effective, enduring treatment of obesity, and most importantly, its comorbid medical problems. So that was really the reasoning. The weight loss is secondary to the profound medical benefits of bariatric surgery. I think that was the impetus of that change, not having really anything to do at the time with GLP-1s,” Dr. Still said.

The Geisinger Health Plan does not currently cover antiobesity medications, although Geisinger Health Plan Family, a state Medicaid plan, does because Pennsylvania is now one of a handful of states that cover the medications through Medicaid.
 

The Equation Keeps Changing

Health economist James Chambers, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organizations, “when you think about the value of a treatment, you don’t look at it in isolation. You’re looking at the difference in cost and benefits. So now that you have these expensive drugs, it’s not that surgeries become less expensive, but it does make you interpret the cost differently. When diet and exercise and counseling were the only real options, surgeries seemed like a much more expensive intervention. But with the advent of the GLP-1s, then, maybe plans consider the costs of surgery a little bit differently.”

And that equation is likely to change further, Dr. Still noted.

“I just think we’re dealing with a short-term financial problem because there’s basically only two main medications so the prices are high, but as more medications come on the market, the prices will come down,” he said.

Cristy Ms. Gallagher, MPAff, research project director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, Washington, DC, agreed.

“We have a lot of data on obesity treatment coverage from before 2023. But then this [GLP-1] explosion happened in 2023…The health payers are out there trying to figure out coverage, and they’re trying to figure out what this is going to look like for them,” Ms. Gallagher said.

However, she pointed out, “there is no treatment that fits everyone. The GLP-1s won’t work for every person because of the different stages of obesity, the side effects, and then because of the coverage. I think that you will not see a decrease in bariatric surgery in the near term, by any means.”

Ms. Gallagher also noted that although the data now suggest people will have to keep taking the drugs for life, there may be other future approaches.

“Once a person hits their goal weight, maybe then they could be transferred to a different pill form that might be cheaper, something that’s sort of more of a maintenance drug. I think that is a huge unknown right now,” she said.

And Mr. Kyle said that while bariatric surgery does provide the most durable benefit, “weight regain after surgery is a fact of life. People are still healthier 5 years later, but they do have some weight regain. And in those cases, you might want to follow-up with medicines…It’s not necessarily an either/or proposition any more than surgical treatment of cancer, surgical oncology is an either/or with medical oncology.”
 

A New View of Obesity

According to Mr. Kyle, all this attention on the new medications “is prompting people to rethink or think differently about obesity and consider it more carefully as a chronic medical condition and not a condition of appearance and behavior. And that’s all good, whether you’re thinking about it from the standpoint of bariatric surgery or from the standpoint of medical treatment of obesity because then people start considering options more rationally.”

This shifting view of obesity has meant that bariatric surgeons and medical obesity specialists are starting to work more collaboratively, he said.

“There is a trend that I detect toward more integrated approaches to obesity,” Mr. Kyle said.

He added, “We now have more tools. And we’re in the messy middle of figuring out how, as a practical matter, to use them.”

And as far as insurance coverage, “people are going to make mistakes. They are making mistakes. But I have been the eternal optimist, and I have faith that people are also figuring it out. It would be hard to do worse.”

For now, any initiatives to increase bariatric surgery rates in the GLP-1 era haven’t yet had an impact, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery President Marina S. Kurian, MD, told this news organization in a statement.

“While we have heard of some insurers possibly changing their requirements for bariatric surgery, we have not seen a significant rise in procedures related to changes in insurance coverage for either antiobesity medications or metabolic and bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kurian said.

Mr. Kyle had accepted speaking or professional fees from Novo Nordisk, Behringer Ingelheim, Nutrisystem, Roman Health, and Emerald Lake Safety. Dr. Still was on the speaker’s bureau and did clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Chambers and Gallagher had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are often not prescribed or accessible to people who could benefit from them, a trio of new studies suggested.

First approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the indications for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications have now been extended to people with obesity, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The papers were presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention | Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024.

The new data show there is “work to be done in terms of access and equity to these treatments,” Robert H. Eckel, MD, who was not involved in the research, said in a conference statement.

“There is no question that the cost of these medications is high, yet when issues go beyond coverage and include sociodemographic and racial differences that influence treatment, these major issues need to be evaluated and addressed,” said Dr. Eckel, professor emeritus of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, and a past president of the AHA.
 

Low Prescription Rates

In one study, researchers analyzed health records for 18,164 adults with obesity (mean age, 51 years; 64% women; mean body mass index [BMI], 36 kg/m2) who had health insurance covering semaglutide and liraglutide (GLP-1 RAs) and tirzepatide (GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide RA). The cohort was 54% White, 35% Black, and 5% Asian.

Only about 3% of eligible adults were prescribed one of these medications, reported Meron Haile, BS, a second-year medical student at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

The likelihood of prescription was lower among Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.76) and men (OR, 0.54) and higher in people with higher BMI (OR, 1.06 per 1-unit higher BMI).

Living in a neighborhood with a higher area deprivation index or lower income was not independently associated with the likelihood of prescription.

Individuals with diabetes or hypertension were more likely to be prescribed one of these medications (OR, 3.52 and 1.36, respectively).

“While prescription rates for new obesity therapies are low among the overall population, we saw pronounced lower accessibility among Black adults, who exhibit a higher burden of severe obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes,” Haile said in a conference statement.

“There is a crucial need for understanding prescription practices for obesity medications and to facilitate similar access among people in all races and ethnic groups,” Haile added.

Similar findings emerged in a separate study, in which researchers analyzed the health records of 687,165 adults with type 2 diabetes treated at six large health systems from 2014 to 2022.

The rate of annual pharmacy dispensing of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA medications rose during the study period, but there were clear racial and ethnic differences in prescribing.

In fully adjusted models, SGLT2 inhibitors dispensing was lower for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN; OR, 0.80), Black (OR, 0.89), and Hispanic (OR, 0.87) individuals than for White patients.

Likewise, GLP-1 RA dispensing was also lower for AI/AN (OR, 0.78), Asian (OR, 0.50), Black (OR, 0.86), Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.52), and Hispanic (OR, 0.69) patients than for White patients.

“It’s possible that not all patients have equal access to information about these medications or that not all patients are equally comfortable asking their doctors about them,” lead author Luis A. Rodriguez, PhD, research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, told this news organization.

“We also don’t know if the cost of the new medications contributed to what we found or if some patients prefer to keep taking a pill rather than switch to some of the GLP-1 receptor agonists that are self-injectable medications. We need to learn more about why this is happening,” Dr. Rodriguez said.
 

‘Concerning’ Data Raise Key Questions

The third study explored how often prescribing recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors are followed.

“Our study revealed a significant gap between the recommendations for prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and the actual prescription rates among patients who could benefit from them,” Jung-Im Shin, MD, PhD, with the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“This could have important implications for patient care and outcomes, as SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to be effective for heart and kidney protection in people with high-risk type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” Dr. Shin said.

Dr. Shin and colleagues analyzed the health records for more than 700,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and 2.5 million people without type 2 diabetes, who received care in 28 US health systems from 2022 to 2023.

Among people with type 2 diabetes recommended for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment, only 12% received a prescription for a SGLT2 inhibitor, and there was no significant difference in prescription between people who met the criteria for first-line SGLT2 inhibitors treatment vs people who did not meet the criteria.

Among people without type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitor prescription was substantially lower, with only about 3% of people with conditions that are guideline-recommended for SGLT2 inhibitors receiving a prescription.

SGLT2 inhibitor prescription rates varied across health systems; however, less than 30% of people who met guideline criteria received a SGLT2 inhibitors prescription across all health systems in the study.

“Barriers to SGLT2 inhibitor prescription include limited insurance coverage, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, formulary restrictions, and lack of physicians’ awareness or familiarity regarding benefits and appropriate indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Shin said.

“Efforts to improve access and affordability of SGLT2 inhibitors along with strategies to educate both patients and providers on the updated guidelines for SGLT2 inhibitors use may increase adoption,” Dr. Shin added.

In a conference recording, Dr. Eckel said he found it “particularly concerning” that among patients with insurance to help pay for these medications, “there were still discrepancies” between prescriptions to Asian and Black vs White patients, “who are being prescribed these important medications.”

“Why these medications are not being offered more regularly by healthcare providers” needs to be addressed, Dr. Eckel said. “I think part of it is ignorance and inadequate education as to their new indications for treatment of diseases that go beyond type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

None of the studies had commercial funding. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine from University of Oxford. I’d like to talk today about how we communicate with patients.

This is current on my mind because on Friday after clinic, I popped around to see a couple of patients who were in our local hospice. They were there for end-of-life care, being wonderfully well looked after. These were patients I have looked after for 3, 4, or 5 years, patients whom I cared for, and patients of whom I was fond. I think that relationship was reciprocated by them.

I found myself in the hospice, standing at the patients’ bedside, towering above them, effectively saying goodbye. The dynamics of that setting just made me think about how odd it seemed. We know that any effective communication between patients and doctors is absolutely critical and fundamental to the delivery of patient-centered care. It’s really hard to measure and challenging to attain in the dynamic, often noisy environment of a busy ward or even in the relative peace and quiet of a hospice.

We know that specific behavior by doctors can make a real difference to how they’re perceived by the patient, including their communicative skills and so on. I’ve been a doctor for more than 40 years, but sophisticated communicator though I think I am, there I was, standing by the bedside. It’s really interesting and odd, actually, when you stop and think about it.

There’s an increasing body of evidence that suggests that if the physician sits at the patient’s bedside, establishes better, more direct eye-to-eye contact and so on, then the quality of communication and patient satisfaction is improved.

I picked up on a recent study published just a few days ago in The BMJ; the title of the study is “Effect of Chair Placement on Physicians’ Behavior and Patients’ Satisfaction: Randomized Deception Trial.”

It was done in a single center and there were 125 separate physician interactions. In half of them, the chair in the patient’s room was in its conventional place back against the wall, round a corner, not particularly accessible. The randomization, or the active intervention, if you like, was to have a chair placed less than 3 feet from the patient’s bed and at the patient’s eye level.

What was really interesting was that of these randomized interventions in the setting in which the chair placement was close to the patient’s bed — it was accessible, less than 3 feet — 38 of the 60 physicians sat down in the chair and engaged with the patient from that level.

In the other setting, in which the chair wasn’t immediately adjacent to the bedside (it was back against the wall, out of the way), only in 5 of 60 did the physician retrieve the chair and move it to the right position. Otherwise, they stood and talked to the patient in that way.

The patient satisfaction scores that were measured using a conventional tool were much better for those seated physicians rather than those who stood and towered above.

This is an interesting study with statistically significant findings. It didn’t mean that the physicians who sat spent more time with the patient. It was the same in both settings, at about 10 or 11 minutes. It didn’t alter the physician’s perception of how long they spent with the patient — they guessed it was about 10 minutes, equally on both sides — or indeed the patient’s interpretation of how long the physician stayed.

It wasn’t a temporal thing but just the quality of communication. The patient satisfaction was much better, just simply by sitting at the patient’s bedside and engaging with them. It’s a tiny thing to do that made for a significant qualitative improvement. I’ve learned that lesson. No more towering above. No more standing at the bottom of the patient’s bedside, as I was taught and as I’ve always done.

I’m going to nudge my behavior. I’m going to use the psychology of that small study to nudge myself, the junior doctors that I train, and perhaps even my consultant colleagues, to do the same. It’s a small but effective step forward in improving patient-centered communication.

I’d be delighted to see what you think. How many of you stand? Being old-school, I would have thought that that’s most of us. How many of you make the effort to drag the chair over to sit at the patient’s bedside and to engage more fully? I’d be really interested in any comments that you’ve got.

For the time being, over and out. Ahoy. Thanks for listening.

Dr. Kerr disclosed the following relevant financial relationships Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (board of directors); Afrox (charity; trustee); and GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (consultant). Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Genomic Health and Merck Serono. Received research grant from Roche. Has a 5% or greater equity interest in Celleron Therapeutics and Oxford Cancer Biomarkers.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, a study was published online in JAMA Dermatology, cautioning that most downloadable mobile apps driven by artificial intelligence (AI) for use in monitoring dermatologic conditions lack validation.

Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.

The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes. 

Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.

To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.

Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy

In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.

The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.

In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.

“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.

For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
 

Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA

Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.

Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity. 

While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.

“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.

In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.

Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.

At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.

“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier. 

AI Should Not Be a Black Box

AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.

“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.

“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.

“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.

Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, a study was published online in JAMA Dermatology, cautioning that most downloadable mobile apps driven by artificial intelligence (AI) for use in monitoring dermatologic conditions lack validation.

Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.

The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes. 

Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.

To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.

Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy

In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.

The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.

In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.

“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.

For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
 

Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA

Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.

Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity. 

While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.

“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.

In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.

Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.

At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.

“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier. 

AI Should Not Be a Black Box

AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.

“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.

“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.

“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.

Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, a study was published online in JAMA Dermatology, cautioning that most downloadable mobile apps driven by artificial intelligence (AI) for use in monitoring dermatologic conditions lack validation.

Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.

The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes. 

Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.

To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.

Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy

In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.

The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.

In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.

“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.

For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
 

Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA

Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.

Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity. 

While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.

“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.

In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.

Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.

At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.

“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier. 

AI Should Not Be a Black Box

AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.

“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.

“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.

“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.

Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .