Federal Practitioner

Due to advances in medicine, people are living longer with the aid of increased options for life-prolonging treatments. These treatment options may improve the quantity but not necessarily the quality of life.¹

Kidney failure can be treated with renal replacement therapy (dialysis or renal transplantation) or supportive care.² In 2017, the global prevalence of kidney failure was about 5.3 to 9.7 million.³ In the United States, about 500,000 patients are receiving maintenance dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and about 1 in 4 will stop dialysis before death, coupled with hospice enrollment.⁴ ESRD is 2 times more prevalent among veterans than in nonveterans, which can be due in part to high rates of comorbid predisposing conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and advanced age, among others.⁵ The decision to discontinue dialysis and receive hospice care tends to be more difficult than choosing to withhold or forego dialysis.⁶

A study conducted among patients who were taken off hemodialysis before death reported that the 2 most common reasons for the withdrawal were acute medical complications and frailty.⁷ A retrospective study among patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis highlighted the underutilization of hospice care in this patient population.⁸ The study also found that those patients who were aged > 75 years, had poor functional status, and had dialysis-related complications, such as sepsis and anemia, were more likely to elect withdrawal of hemodialysis. There was no difference in overall survival or quality of life among patients who were aged ≥ 75 years with multiple comorbidities and functional impairment who elected conservative management vs those who started dialysis.⁸ Long-term continuous dialysis has been associated with a lower quality of life, increased dependence on others, and a variety of symptoms, such as pain, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, or depression.⁹

Conservative Care vs Medical Paternalism

In the United States, it is unusual for patients with ESRD to choose conservative care, and supportive services are less available for those who do compared with patients with ESRD in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada.¹⁰ A study looking at a small number of US nephrologists has shown they may have limited experience in caring for patients who forego dialysis and they are not comfortable offering conservative management over dialysis.¹⁰ Another small study from Sweden also showed that many nephrologists do not feel prepared for end-of-life care and conversations.¹¹

Patients often rely on knowledgeable recommendations from medical experts. However, medical paternalism occurs when a physician makes decisions deemed to be in the patient’s best interest but are against the patient’s wishes or when the patient is unable to give their consent.¹² Hard paternalism occurs when the patient is competent to make their own medical decisions, while soft paternalism occurs when a patient is not competent to make their own medical decisions.¹³

Patient autonomy is widely recognized as an ethical principle in medicine. It recognizes patients as well-informed decision makers who may act without excessive influence to make intentional determinations on their own behalf.¹⁴ Autonomy can be exercised at any point during the health care process.¹² Although ethical and legal guidelines encourage physicians to recommend appropriate treatment, medical opinion cannot overrule the wishes of a competent patient who refuses treatment.¹²

Case Presentation

Mr. S presented to the emergency department at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center with abdominal pain from recurrent pancreatitis. The patient aged > 65 years had a history of depression, ESRD, and was receiving hemodialysis. A computed tomography scan revealed a new pancreatic mass, and he was referred to the palliative care (PC) department nurse practitioner (NP) for a goals-of-care discussion. PC was informed to assist with hospice care initiation: The patient elected a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status and hospice care.

At the consultation, Mr. S stated that he had decided to forego life-prolonging treatments, including hemodialysis, and declined further evaluation for his pancreatic mass. He shared a good understanding of concerns for malignancy with his mass but did not wish to pursue further diagnostics as he knew his life expectancy was very limited without dialysis. He had been dependent on hemodialysis for the past 10 years. He had briefly received hospice care 5 years before but changed his mind and decided to pursue standard care, including life-prolonging dialysis treatments. He reported no depression, suicidal ideation, or intentions of hastening his death. He stated that he was just physically tired from his ongoing dialysis, recurrent hospitalizations, and being repeatedly subjected to diagnostic tests. Mr. S added that he had discussed his plan with his family, including his son and sister-in-law who is married to his brother. Mr. S previously identified his brother as his surrogate decision maker.

Mr. S shared that his brother had sustained a traumatic brain injury and was now unable to engage in a meaningful conversation. He shared that his family supported his decision. He also recognized that with his debility, he would need inpatient hospice care. On finding out that Mr. S’s brother was no longer able to act as the surrogate decision maker, the PC NP asked whether he wanted her to contact his son to share the outcome of their visit. The patient declined, adding that he had discussed his care plans with his family and did not feel that his health care team needed to have additional discussions with them.

Mr. S also reported chronic, recurrent right upper quadrant pain. He was prescribed oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed; however, it did little to control his pain. He also reported generalized pruritus, a complication of his renal failure.

After 1 week, Mr. S was transferred to the inpatient hospice unit. At that time, he allowed the hospice team to contact his son for medical updates and identified him as the primary point of contact for the hospice team if the need arose to reach his family. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, Mr. S had virtual video visits with his family. Mr. S developed intermittent confusion and worsening fatigue over time. His son was informed of his deteriorating condition and visited his father. Mr. S died peacefully 2 days later with his family present.

Multidisciplinary Inputs on the Case

Medicine. In discussing the case with medicine, the PC NP was informed that the goals the patient had for his care, which included stopping dialysis, having a DNR code status and pursuing hospice care, along with the patient’s pain symptoms prompted the PC consultation. The resident also shared concerns about the patient’s refusal to have his surrogate decision maker and family contacted regarding his decisions for his care.

Palliative care. After meeting with the patient and assisting in identifying goals for care, the PC NP recommended initiation of hospice care in the hospital while the patient awaited transfer to the inpatient hospice unit. The PC NP also recommended a psychiatric evaluation to rule out untreated depression that might influence the patient’s decision making. A follow-up visit with nephrology was also recommended. Optimal management of his distressing physical symptoms was recommended, including prescribing hydromorphone instead of oxycodone for his pain and starting a topical emollient for pruritus.

Nephrology. The patient’s electronic health records (EHR) showed that he informed nephrology of his desire to pursue hospice care and that he decided against further dialysis, including as-needed dialysis for comfort. The records also indicated that the patient understood the consequences of discontinuing dialysis.

Psychiatry. The patient’s EHR also showed that during his psychiatric visits, Mr. S reported he had no thoughts of suicide, and it was against his spiritual beliefs. He said he made his own medical decisions and expressed that his health care team should not attempt to change his mind. He also said he understood that stopping dialysis could lead to early death. He stated he had a close relationship with his family and discussed his medical decisions with them. He was tearful at times when he talked about his family. Mr. S shared his frustration about repeatedly being asked the same questions on succeeding visits.

After evaluation, psychiatry diagnosed Mr. S with mood disorder with depressive features and he was prescribed methylphenidate 5 mg daily and sertraline 25 mg daily. They also recommended continuing to offer dialysis in a supportive manner since the patient had changed his mind about hospice in the past. However, psychiatry followed the patient daily for 5 days and concluded that his medical decisions were not clouded by mood symptoms.

Discussion

Patients who are aged > 65 years and on dialysis are more likely to experience higher rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, procedures, and death in the hospital compared with patients who have cancer or heart failure. They also use hospice services less.¹⁵ Often this is not consistent with a patient’s wishes but may occur due to limited discussion of goals, values, and preferences between physician and patient.¹⁵ Many nephrologists do not engage in these conversations for fear of upsetting patients, their perceived lack of skill in prognostication and discussing the topic, or the lack of time to have the conversation.¹⁵ It is important to have an honest and open communication with patients that allows them to be fully informed as they make their medical decisions and exercise their autonomy.

Medicare hospice guidelines also are used to help determine hospice appropriateness among veterans in the VA. Medicare requires enrollees to discontinue disease-modifying treatment for the medical condition leading to their hospice diagnosis, which can result in late hospice referrals and shorter hospice stays.¹⁶ Even though hospice referrals for patients with ESRD have increased over time, they are still happening close to the time of death, and patients’ health care utilization near the end of life remains unchanged.¹⁶ According to Medicare, patients qualify for hospice care if they are terminally ill (defined as having a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months), choose comfort care over curative care for their terminal illness, and sign a statement electing hospice care over treatments for their terminal illness.¹⁷ A DNR order is not a condition for hospice admission.¹⁸

The VA defines hospice care as comfort care provided to patients with a terminal condition, a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months, and who are no longer seeking treatment other than those that are palliative.¹⁹ Based on his ESRD, Mr. S was qualified for hospice care, and his goals for care were consistent with the hospice philosophy. Most families of patients who elected to withdraw dialysis reported a good death, using the criteria of the duration of dying, discomfort, and psychosocial circumstances.²⁰

Role of HCPs

Health care practitioners (HCPs) are expected to help patients understand the risks and benefits of their choices and its alternative, align patients’ goals with those risks and benefits, and assist patients in making choices that promote their goals and autonomy.²¹ Family members are often not involved in medical decision making when patients have the capacity to make their own decisions.²² Patients will also have to give permission for protected health information to be shared with their family members.²² On the other hand, families have been shown to provide valuable emotional support to patients and are considered second patients themselves in the sense that they can be impacted by patients’ clinical situation.²² Families may also need care, time, and attention from HCPs.²²

Mr. S was found capable of making his own decisions, and part of that decision was that his family not to be present for the goals-of-care discussion. He added that he would discuss the care decisions with his family. At the time of registering for VA health care services, Mr. S had provided his health care team with his brother and sister-in-law’s emergency contact information as well as named his brother surrogate decision maker. As Mr. S’s condition was expected to rapidly decline wthout dialysis, the HCPs would be able to notify family members once his condition changed, including death.

Neuroplasticity changes can contribute to chronic pain that may also lead to depression.²³ Chronic pain and depression may involve the same brain structures, neurotransmitters, and signaling pathway.²³ Factors leading to chronic pain and depression include decreased availability of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the central nervous system, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor, inflammatory response, and increased glutamate activity.²³ Depression and hopelessness have been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients with a terminal illness.²⁴ Worse mental health has been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients who are older and functionally impaired.²⁵ It was important to optimize Mr. S’s treatment for pain and depression to ensure that these factors were not influencing his medical decisions.

With increasing recognition of the need to improve quality of life, health care utilization, and provide care consistent with patients’ goals in nephrology, the concept of renal PC is emerging but remains limited.²⁶ The need to improve supportive care or PC for patients starting on dialysis for ESRD is high as these patients tend to be older (aged > 75 years), have high rates of cardiovascular comorbidities, can have coexisting cognitive impairment and functional debility, and have an adjusted mortality rate of up to 32.5% within 1 year of starting dialysis.²⁶ Some ways to enhance renal PC programs include incorporating PC skill development and training within nephrology fellowships, educating patients with chronic and ESRD about PC and options for medical management without dialysis, and increasing the collaboration between nephrology and PC.²⁶

Outcomes and Implications

Respect for the ethical principle of autonomy is paramount in health care. Patients should be able to give informed consent for treatment decisions without undue influence from their HCPs and should be able to withdraw that consent at any point during treatment. Factors that may influence patients’ ability to make medical decisions should be considered, including untreated or poorly treated symptoms. The involvement of PC helps optimize symptom management, provide support, and assist in goals-of-care discussions. Advanced practice PC nurses can offer other members of the health care team additional information and support in end-of-life care. Family involvement should be encouraged even for patients who can make their own medical decisions for emotional support and to assist families in what could be a traumatic event, such as the loss of a loved one.

The desire to pursue a comfort-focused approach to terminal illness and stop disease-modifying treatments are criteria for hospice care. An interdisciplinary approach to end-of-life care is beneficial, and every specialty should be equipped to engage in honest communication and skillful prognostication. These conversations should start early in the course of a terminal illness. Multiple factors contribute to poor clinical outcomes among patients with ESRD even with renal replacement therapy, such as dialysis. There is a need to improve PC training in the field of nephrology.

Conclusions

Mr. S was able to choose to withdraw potentially life-prolonging treatments with the support of his family and HCPs. He was able to continue receiving high-quality care and treatment in accordance with his wishes and goals for his care. The provision of interdisciplinary care that focused on supporting him allowed for his peaceful and comfortable death.

Due to advances in medicine, people are living longer with the aid of increased options for life-prolonging treatments. These treatment options may improve the quantity but not necessarily the quality of life.¹

Kidney failure can be treated with renal replacement therapy (dialysis or renal transplantation) or supportive care.² In 2017, the global prevalence of kidney failure was about 5.3 to 9.7 million.³ In the United States, about 500,000 patients are receiving maintenance dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and about 1 in 4 will stop dialysis before death, coupled with hospice enrollment.⁴ ESRD is 2 times more prevalent among veterans than in nonveterans, which can be due in part to high rates of comorbid predisposing conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and advanced age, among others.⁵ The decision to discontinue dialysis and receive hospice care tends to be more difficult than choosing to withhold or forego dialysis.⁶

A study conducted among patients who were taken off hemodialysis before death reported that the 2 most common reasons for the withdrawal were acute medical complications and frailty.⁷ A retrospective study among patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis highlighted the underutilization of hospice care in this patient population.⁸ The study also found that those patients who were aged > 75 years, had poor functional status, and had dialysis-related complications, such as sepsis and anemia, were more likely to elect withdrawal of hemodialysis. There was no difference in overall survival or quality of life among patients who were aged ≥ 75 years with multiple comorbidities and functional impairment who elected conservative management vs those who started dialysis.⁸ Long-term continuous dialysis has been associated with a lower quality of life, increased dependence on others, and a variety of symptoms, such as pain, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, or depression.⁹

Conservative Care vs Medical Paternalism

In the United States, it is unusual for patients with ESRD to choose conservative care, and supportive services are less available for those who do compared with patients with ESRD in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada.¹⁰ A study looking at a small number of US nephrologists has shown they may have limited experience in caring for patients who forego dialysis and they are not comfortable offering conservative management over dialysis.¹⁰ Another small study from Sweden also showed that many nephrologists do not feel prepared for end-of-life care and conversations.¹¹

Patients often rely on knowledgeable recommendations from medical experts. However, medical paternalism occurs when a physician makes decisions deemed to be in the patient’s best interest but are against the patient’s wishes or when the patient is unable to give their consent.¹² Hard paternalism occurs when the patient is competent to make their own medical decisions, while soft paternalism occurs when a patient is not competent to make their own medical decisions.¹³

Patient autonomy is widely recognized as an ethical principle in medicine. It recognizes patients as well-informed decision makers who may act without excessive influence to make intentional determinations on their own behalf.¹⁴ Autonomy can be exercised at any point during the health care process.¹² Although ethical and legal guidelines encourage physicians to recommend appropriate treatment, medical opinion cannot overrule the wishes of a competent patient who refuses treatment.¹²

Case Presentation

Mr. S presented to the emergency department at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center with abdominal pain from recurrent pancreatitis. The patient aged > 65 years had a history of depression, ESRD, and was receiving hemodialysis. A computed tomography scan revealed a new pancreatic mass, and he was referred to the palliative care (PC) department nurse practitioner (NP) for a goals-of-care discussion. PC was informed to assist with hospice care initiation: The patient elected a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status and hospice care.

At the consultation, Mr. S stated that he had decided to forego life-prolonging treatments, including hemodialysis, and declined further evaluation for his pancreatic mass. He shared a good understanding of concerns for malignancy with his mass but did not wish to pursue further diagnostics as he knew his life expectancy was very limited without dialysis. He had been dependent on hemodialysis for the past 10 years. He had briefly received hospice care 5 years before but changed his mind and decided to pursue standard care, including life-prolonging dialysis treatments. He reported no depression, suicidal ideation, or intentions of hastening his death. He stated that he was just physically tired from his ongoing dialysis, recurrent hospitalizations, and being repeatedly subjected to diagnostic tests. Mr. S added that he had discussed his plan with his family, including his son and sister-in-law who is married to his brother. Mr. S previously identified his brother as his surrogate decision maker.

Mr. S shared that his brother had sustained a traumatic brain injury and was now unable to engage in a meaningful conversation. He shared that his family supported his decision. He also recognized that with his debility, he would need inpatient hospice care. On finding out that Mr. S’s brother was no longer able to act as the surrogate decision maker, the PC NP asked whether he wanted her to contact his son to share the outcome of their visit. The patient declined, adding that he had discussed his care plans with his family and did not feel that his health care team needed to have additional discussions with them.

Mr. S also reported chronic, recurrent right upper quadrant pain. He was prescribed oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed; however, it did little to control his pain. He also reported generalized pruritus, a complication of his renal failure.

After 1 week, Mr. S was transferred to the inpatient hospice unit. At that time, he allowed the hospice team to contact his son for medical updates and identified him as the primary point of contact for the hospice team if the need arose to reach his family. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, Mr. S had virtual video visits with his family. Mr. S developed intermittent confusion and worsening fatigue over time. His son was informed of his deteriorating condition and visited his father. Mr. S died peacefully 2 days later with his family present.

Multidisciplinary Inputs on the Case

Medicine. In discussing the case with medicine, the PC NP was informed that the goals the patient had for his care, which included stopping dialysis, having a DNR code status and pursuing hospice care, along with the patient’s pain symptoms prompted the PC consultation. The resident also shared concerns about the patient’s refusal to have his surrogate decision maker and family contacted regarding his decisions for his care.

Palliative care. After meeting with the patient and assisting in identifying goals for care, the PC NP recommended initiation of hospice care in the hospital while the patient awaited transfer to the inpatient hospice unit. The PC NP also recommended a psychiatric evaluation to rule out untreated depression that might influence the patient’s decision making. A follow-up visit with nephrology was also recommended. Optimal management of his distressing physical symptoms was recommended, including prescribing hydromorphone instead of oxycodone for his pain and starting a topical emollient for pruritus.

Nephrology. The patient’s electronic health records (EHR) showed that he informed nephrology of his desire to pursue hospice care and that he decided against further dialysis, including as-needed dialysis for comfort. The records also indicated that the patient understood the consequences of discontinuing dialysis.

Psychiatry. The patient’s EHR also showed that during his psychiatric visits, Mr. S reported he had no thoughts of suicide, and it was against his spiritual beliefs. He said he made his own medical decisions and expressed that his health care team should not attempt to change his mind. He also said he understood that stopping dialysis could lead to early death. He stated he had a close relationship with his family and discussed his medical decisions with them. He was tearful at times when he talked about his family. Mr. S shared his frustration about repeatedly being asked the same questions on succeeding visits.

After evaluation, psychiatry diagnosed Mr. S with mood disorder with depressive features and he was prescribed methylphenidate 5 mg daily and sertraline 25 mg daily. They also recommended continuing to offer dialysis in a supportive manner since the patient had changed his mind about hospice in the past. However, psychiatry followed the patient daily for 5 days and concluded that his medical decisions were not clouded by mood symptoms.

Discussion

Patients who are aged > 65 years and on dialysis are more likely to experience higher rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, procedures, and death in the hospital compared with patients who have cancer or heart failure. They also use hospice services less.¹⁵ Often this is not consistent with a patient’s wishes but may occur due to limited discussion of goals, values, and preferences between physician and patient.¹⁵ Many nephrologists do not engage in these conversations for fear of upsetting patients, their perceived lack of skill in prognostication and discussing the topic, or the lack of time to have the conversation.¹⁵ It is important to have an honest and open communication with patients that allows them to be fully informed as they make their medical decisions and exercise their autonomy.

Medicare hospice guidelines also are used to help determine hospice appropriateness among veterans in the VA. Medicare requires enrollees to discontinue disease-modifying treatment for the medical condition leading to their hospice diagnosis, which can result in late hospice referrals and shorter hospice stays.¹⁶ Even though hospice referrals for patients with ESRD have increased over time, they are still happening close to the time of death, and patients’ health care utilization near the end of life remains unchanged.¹⁶ According to Medicare, patients qualify for hospice care if they are terminally ill (defined as having a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months), choose comfort care over curative care for their terminal illness, and sign a statement electing hospice care over treatments for their terminal illness.¹⁷ A DNR order is not a condition for hospice admission.¹⁸

The VA defines hospice care as comfort care provided to patients with a terminal condition, a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months, and who are no longer seeking treatment other than those that are palliative.¹⁹ Based on his ESRD, Mr. S was qualified for hospice care, and his goals for care were consistent with the hospice philosophy. Most families of patients who elected to withdraw dialysis reported a good death, using the criteria of the duration of dying, discomfort, and psychosocial circumstances.²⁰

Role of HCPs

Health care practitioners (HCPs) are expected to help patients understand the risks and benefits of their choices and its alternative, align patients’ goals with those risks and benefits, and assist patients in making choices that promote their goals and autonomy.²¹ Family members are often not involved in medical decision making when patients have the capacity to make their own decisions.²² Patients will also have to give permission for protected health information to be shared with their family members.²² On the other hand, families have been shown to provide valuable emotional support to patients and are considered second patients themselves in the sense that they can be impacted by patients’ clinical situation.²² Families may also need care, time, and attention from HCPs.²²

Mr. S was found capable of making his own decisions, and part of that decision was that his family not to be present for the goals-of-care discussion. He added that he would discuss the care decisions with his family. At the time of registering for VA health care services, Mr. S had provided his health care team with his brother and sister-in-law’s emergency contact information as well as named his brother surrogate decision maker. As Mr. S’s condition was expected to rapidly decline wthout dialysis, the HCPs would be able to notify family members once his condition changed, including death.

Neuroplasticity changes can contribute to chronic pain that may also lead to depression.²³ Chronic pain and depression may involve the same brain structures, neurotransmitters, and signaling pathway.²³ Factors leading to chronic pain and depression include decreased availability of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the central nervous system, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor, inflammatory response, and increased glutamate activity.²³ Depression and hopelessness have been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients with a terminal illness.²⁴ Worse mental health has been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients who are older and functionally impaired.²⁵ It was important to optimize Mr. S’s treatment for pain and depression to ensure that these factors were not influencing his medical decisions.

With increasing recognition of the need to improve quality of life, health care utilization, and provide care consistent with patients’ goals in nephrology, the concept of renal PC is emerging but remains limited.²⁶ The need to improve supportive care or PC for patients starting on dialysis for ESRD is high as these patients tend to be older (aged > 75 years), have high rates of cardiovascular comorbidities, can have coexisting cognitive impairment and functional debility, and have an adjusted mortality rate of up to 32.5% within 1 year of starting dialysis.²⁶ Some ways to enhance renal PC programs include incorporating PC skill development and training within nephrology fellowships, educating patients with chronic and ESRD about PC and options for medical management without dialysis, and increasing the collaboration between nephrology and PC.²⁶

Outcomes and Implications

Respect for the ethical principle of autonomy is paramount in health care. Patients should be able to give informed consent for treatment decisions without undue influence from their HCPs and should be able to withdraw that consent at any point during treatment. Factors that may influence patients’ ability to make medical decisions should be considered, including untreated or poorly treated symptoms. The involvement of PC helps optimize symptom management, provide support, and assist in goals-of-care discussions. Advanced practice PC nurses can offer other members of the health care team additional information and support in end-of-life care. Family involvement should be encouraged even for patients who can make their own medical decisions for emotional support and to assist families in what could be a traumatic event, such as the loss of a loved one.

The desire to pursue a comfort-focused approach to terminal illness and stop disease-modifying treatments are criteria for hospice care. An interdisciplinary approach to end-of-life care is beneficial, and every specialty should be equipped to engage in honest communication and skillful prognostication. These conversations should start early in the course of a terminal illness. Multiple factors contribute to poor clinical outcomes among patients with ESRD even with renal replacement therapy, such as dialysis. There is a need to improve PC training in the field of nephrology.

Conclusions

Mr. S was able to choose to withdraw potentially life-prolonging treatments with the support of his family and HCPs. He was able to continue receiving high-quality care and treatment in accordance with his wishes and goals for his care. The provision of interdisciplinary care that focused on supporting him allowed for his peaceful and comfortable death.

Due to advances in medicine, people are living longer with the aid of increased options for life-prolonging treatments. These treatment options may improve the quantity but not necessarily the quality of life.¹

Kidney failure can be treated with renal replacement therapy (dialysis or renal transplantation) or supportive care.² In 2017, the global prevalence of kidney failure was about 5.3 to 9.7 million.³ In the United States, about 500,000 patients are receiving maintenance dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and about 1 in 4 will stop dialysis before death, coupled with hospice enrollment.⁴ ESRD is 2 times more prevalent among veterans than in nonveterans, which can be due in part to high rates of comorbid predisposing conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and advanced age, among others.⁵ The decision to discontinue dialysis and receive hospice care tends to be more difficult than choosing to withhold or forego dialysis.⁶

A study conducted among patients who were taken off hemodialysis before death reported that the 2 most common reasons for the withdrawal were acute medical complications and frailty.⁷ A retrospective study among patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis highlighted the underutilization of hospice care in this patient population.⁸ The study also found that those patients who were aged > 75 years, had poor functional status, and had dialysis-related complications, such as sepsis and anemia, were more likely to elect withdrawal of hemodialysis. There was no difference in overall survival or quality of life among patients who were aged ≥ 75 years with multiple comorbidities and functional impairment who elected conservative management vs those who started dialysis.⁸ Long-term continuous dialysis has been associated with a lower quality of life, increased dependence on others, and a variety of symptoms, such as pain, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, or depression.⁹

Conservative Care vs Medical Paternalism

In the United States, it is unusual for patients with ESRD to choose conservative care, and supportive services are less available for those who do compared with patients with ESRD in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada.¹⁰ A study looking at a small number of US nephrologists has shown they may have limited experience in caring for patients who forego dialysis and they are not comfortable offering conservative management over dialysis.¹⁰ Another small study from Sweden also showed that many nephrologists do not feel prepared for end-of-life care and conversations.¹¹

Patients often rely on knowledgeable recommendations from medical experts. However, medical paternalism occurs when a physician makes decisions deemed to be in the patient’s best interest but are against the patient’s wishes or when the patient is unable to give their consent.¹² Hard paternalism occurs when the patient is competent to make their own medical decisions, while soft paternalism occurs when a patient is not competent to make their own medical decisions.¹³

Patient autonomy is widely recognized as an ethical principle in medicine. It recognizes patients as well-informed decision makers who may act without excessive influence to make intentional determinations on their own behalf.¹⁴ Autonomy can be exercised at any point during the health care process.¹² Although ethical and legal guidelines encourage physicians to recommend appropriate treatment, medical opinion cannot overrule the wishes of a competent patient who refuses treatment.¹²

Case Presentation

Mr. S presented to the emergency department at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center with abdominal pain from recurrent pancreatitis. The patient aged > 65 years had a history of depression, ESRD, and was receiving hemodialysis. A computed tomography scan revealed a new pancreatic mass, and he was referred to the palliative care (PC) department nurse practitioner (NP) for a goals-of-care discussion. PC was informed to assist with hospice care initiation: The patient elected a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status and hospice care.

At the consultation, Mr. S stated that he had decided to forego life-prolonging treatments, including hemodialysis, and declined further evaluation for his pancreatic mass. He shared a good understanding of concerns for malignancy with his mass but did not wish to pursue further diagnostics as he knew his life expectancy was very limited without dialysis. He had been dependent on hemodialysis for the past 10 years. He had briefly received hospice care 5 years before but changed his mind and decided to pursue standard care, including life-prolonging dialysis treatments. He reported no depression, suicidal ideation, or intentions of hastening his death. He stated that he was just physically tired from his ongoing dialysis, recurrent hospitalizations, and being repeatedly subjected to diagnostic tests. Mr. S added that he had discussed his plan with his family, including his son and sister-in-law who is married to his brother. Mr. S previously identified his brother as his surrogate decision maker.

Mr. S shared that his brother had sustained a traumatic brain injury and was now unable to engage in a meaningful conversation. He shared that his family supported his decision. He also recognized that with his debility, he would need inpatient hospice care. On finding out that Mr. S’s brother was no longer able to act as the surrogate decision maker, the PC NP asked whether he wanted her to contact his son to share the outcome of their visit. The patient declined, adding that he had discussed his care plans with his family and did not feel that his health care team needed to have additional discussions with them.

Mr. S also reported chronic, recurrent right upper quadrant pain. He was prescribed oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed; however, it did little to control his pain. He also reported generalized pruritus, a complication of his renal failure.

After 1 week, Mr. S was transferred to the inpatient hospice unit. At that time, he allowed the hospice team to contact his son for medical updates and identified him as the primary point of contact for the hospice team if the need arose to reach his family. Due to the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, Mr. S had virtual video visits with his family. Mr. S developed intermittent confusion and worsening fatigue over time. His son was informed of his deteriorating condition and visited his father. Mr. S died peacefully 2 days later with his family present.

Multidisciplinary Inputs on the Case

Medicine. In discussing the case with medicine, the PC NP was informed that the goals the patient had for his care, which included stopping dialysis, having a DNR code status and pursuing hospice care, along with the patient’s pain symptoms prompted the PC consultation. The resident also shared concerns about the patient’s refusal to have his surrogate decision maker and family contacted regarding his decisions for his care.

Palliative care. After meeting with the patient and assisting in identifying goals for care, the PC NP recommended initiation of hospice care in the hospital while the patient awaited transfer to the inpatient hospice unit. The PC NP also recommended a psychiatric evaluation to rule out untreated depression that might influence the patient’s decision making. A follow-up visit with nephrology was also recommended. Optimal management of his distressing physical symptoms was recommended, including prescribing hydromorphone instead of oxycodone for his pain and starting a topical emollient for pruritus.

Nephrology. The patient’s electronic health records (EHR) showed that he informed nephrology of his desire to pursue hospice care and that he decided against further dialysis, including as-needed dialysis for comfort. The records also indicated that the patient understood the consequences of discontinuing dialysis.

Psychiatry. The patient’s EHR also showed that during his psychiatric visits, Mr. S reported he had no thoughts of suicide, and it was against his spiritual beliefs. He said he made his own medical decisions and expressed that his health care team should not attempt to change his mind. He also said he understood that stopping dialysis could lead to early death. He stated he had a close relationship with his family and discussed his medical decisions with them. He was tearful at times when he talked about his family. Mr. S shared his frustration about repeatedly being asked the same questions on succeeding visits.

After evaluation, psychiatry diagnosed Mr. S with mood disorder with depressive features and he was prescribed methylphenidate 5 mg daily and sertraline 25 mg daily. They also recommended continuing to offer dialysis in a supportive manner since the patient had changed his mind about hospice in the past. However, psychiatry followed the patient daily for 5 days and concluded that his medical decisions were not clouded by mood symptoms.

Discussion

Patients who are aged > 65 years and on dialysis are more likely to experience higher rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, procedures, and death in the hospital compared with patients who have cancer or heart failure. They also use hospice services less.¹⁵ Often this is not consistent with a patient’s wishes but may occur due to limited discussion of goals, values, and preferences between physician and patient.¹⁵ Many nephrologists do not engage in these conversations for fear of upsetting patients, their perceived lack of skill in prognostication and discussing the topic, or the lack of time to have the conversation.¹⁵ It is important to have an honest and open communication with patients that allows them to be fully informed as they make their medical decisions and exercise their autonomy.

Medicare hospice guidelines also are used to help determine hospice appropriateness among veterans in the VA. Medicare requires enrollees to discontinue disease-modifying treatment for the medical condition leading to their hospice diagnosis, which can result in late hospice referrals and shorter hospice stays.¹⁶ Even though hospice referrals for patients with ESRD have increased over time, they are still happening close to the time of death, and patients’ health care utilization near the end of life remains unchanged.¹⁶ According to Medicare, patients qualify for hospice care if they are terminally ill (defined as having a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months), choose comfort care over curative care for their terminal illness, and sign a statement electing hospice care over treatments for their terminal illness.¹⁷ A DNR order is not a condition for hospice admission.¹⁸

The VA defines hospice care as comfort care provided to patients with a terminal condition, a life expectancy of ≤ 6 months, and who are no longer seeking treatment other than those that are palliative.¹⁹ Based on his ESRD, Mr. S was qualified for hospice care, and his goals for care were consistent with the hospice philosophy. Most families of patients who elected to withdraw dialysis reported a good death, using the criteria of the duration of dying, discomfort, and psychosocial circumstances.²⁰

Role of HCPs

Health care practitioners (HCPs) are expected to help patients understand the risks and benefits of their choices and its alternative, align patients’ goals with those risks and benefits, and assist patients in making choices that promote their goals and autonomy.²¹ Family members are often not involved in medical decision making when patients have the capacity to make their own decisions.²² Patients will also have to give permission for protected health information to be shared with their family members.²² On the other hand, families have been shown to provide valuable emotional support to patients and are considered second patients themselves in the sense that they can be impacted by patients’ clinical situation.²² Families may also need care, time, and attention from HCPs.²²

Mr. S was found capable of making his own decisions, and part of that decision was that his family not to be present for the goals-of-care discussion. He added that he would discuss the care decisions with his family. At the time of registering for VA health care services, Mr. S had provided his health care team with his brother and sister-in-law’s emergency contact information as well as named his brother surrogate decision maker. As Mr. S’s condition was expected to rapidly decline wthout dialysis, the HCPs would be able to notify family members once his condition changed, including death.

Neuroplasticity changes can contribute to chronic pain that may also lead to depression.²³ Chronic pain and depression may involve the same brain structures, neurotransmitters, and signaling pathway.²³ Factors leading to chronic pain and depression include decreased availability of monoamine neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in the central nervous system, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor, inflammatory response, and increased glutamate activity.²³ Depression and hopelessness have been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients with a terminal illness.²⁴ Worse mental health has been associated with the desire to hasten death among patients who are older and functionally impaired.²⁵ It was important to optimize Mr. S’s treatment for pain and depression to ensure that these factors were not influencing his medical decisions.

With increasing recognition of the need to improve quality of life, health care utilization, and provide care consistent with patients’ goals in nephrology, the concept of renal PC is emerging but remains limited.²⁶ The need to improve supportive care or PC for patients starting on dialysis for ESRD is high as these patients tend to be older (aged > 75 years), have high rates of cardiovascular comorbidities, can have coexisting cognitive impairment and functional debility, and have an adjusted mortality rate of up to 32.5% within 1 year of starting dialysis.²⁶ Some ways to enhance renal PC programs include incorporating PC skill development and training within nephrology fellowships, educating patients with chronic and ESRD about PC and options for medical management without dialysis, and increasing the collaboration between nephrology and PC.²⁶

Outcomes and Implications

Respect for the ethical principle of autonomy is paramount in health care. Patients should be able to give informed consent for treatment decisions without undue influence from their HCPs and should be able to withdraw that consent at any point during treatment. Factors that may influence patients’ ability to make medical decisions should be considered, including untreated or poorly treated symptoms. The involvement of PC helps optimize symptom management, provide support, and assist in goals-of-care discussions. Advanced practice PC nurses can offer other members of the health care team additional information and support in end-of-life care. Family involvement should be encouraged even for patients who can make their own medical decisions for emotional support and to assist families in what could be a traumatic event, such as the loss of a loved one.

The desire to pursue a comfort-focused approach to terminal illness and stop disease-modifying treatments are criteria for hospice care. An interdisciplinary approach to end-of-life care is beneficial, and every specialty should be equipped to engage in honest communication and skillful prognostication. These conversations should start early in the course of a terminal illness. Multiple factors contribute to poor clinical outcomes among patients with ESRD even with renal replacement therapy, such as dialysis. There is a need to improve PC training in the field of nephrology.

Conclusions

Mr. S was able to choose to withdraw potentially life-prolonging treatments with the support of his family and HCPs. He was able to continue receiving high-quality care and treatment in accordance with his wishes and goals for his care. The provision of interdisciplinary care that focused on supporting him allowed for his peaceful and comfortable death.

Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.

“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.

The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.

Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.

Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.

The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.

For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.

Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
 

Unanswered questions

After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).

The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.

As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).

Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).

A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.

“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
 

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.

But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.

Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.

“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.

However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.

That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.

As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.

The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
 

‘More convincing’

Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.

“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.

However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.

As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.

For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.

He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.

“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.

Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.

Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.

She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”

The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.

“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.

The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.

Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.

Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.

The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.

For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.

Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
 

Unanswered questions

After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).

The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.

As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).

Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).

A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.

“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
 

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.

But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.

Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.

“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.

However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.

That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.

As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.

The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
 

‘More convincing’

Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.

“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.

However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.

As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.

For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.

He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.

“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.

Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.

Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.

She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”

The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.

“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.

The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.

Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.

Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.

The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.

For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.

Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
 

Unanswered questions

After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).

The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.

As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).

Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).

A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.

“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
 

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.

But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.

Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.

“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.

However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.

That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.

As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.

The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
 

‘More convincing’

Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.

“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.

However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.

As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.

For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.

He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.

“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.

Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.

Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.

She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”

The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Dementia prevalence is 61% higher among older people with moderate to severe hearing loss compared with those with normal hearing, new national data show.

Investigators also found that even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and that hearing aid use was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence.

“Every 10-decibel increase in hearing loss was associated with 16% greater prevalence of dementia, such that prevalence of dementia in older adults with moderate or greater hearing loss was 61% higher than prevalence in those with normal hearing,” lead investigator Alison Huang, PhD, senior research associate in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and core faculty in the Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Dose-dependent effect

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 2,413 community-dwelling participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, continuous panel study of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.

Data from the study were collected during in-home interviews, setting it apart from previous work that relied on data collected in a clinical setting, Dr. Huang said.

“This study was able to capture more vulnerable populations, such as the oldest old and older adults with disabilities, typically excluded from prior epidemiologic studies of the hearing loss–dementia association that use clinic-based data collection, which only captures people who have the ability and means to get to clinics,” Dr. Huang said.

Weighted hearing loss prevalence was 36.7% for mild and 29.8% for moderate to severe hearing loss, and weighted prevalence of dementia was 10.3%.

Those with moderate to severe hearing loss were 61% more likely to have dementia than those with normal hearing (prevalence ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.38).

Dementia prevalence increased with increasing severity of hearing loss: normal hearing: 6.19% (95% CI, 4.31-8.80); mild hearing loss: 8.93% (95% CI, 6.99-11.34); moderate/severe hearing loss: 16.52% (95% CI, 13.81-19.64). But only moderate to severe hearing loss showed a statistically significant association with dementia (P = .02).

Dementia prevalence increased 16% per 10-decibel increase in hearing loss (prevalence ratio 1.16; P < .001).

Among the 853 individuals in the study with moderate to severe hearing loss, those who used hearing aids (n = 414) had a 32% lower risk of dementia compared with those who didn’t use assistive devices (prevalence ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00). This news organization last month reported on similar data published in JAMA Neurology suggesting that hearing aids reduce dementia risk.

“With this study, we were able to refine our understanding of the strength of the hearing loss–dementia association in a study more representative of older adults in the United States,” said Dr. Huang.
 

Robust association

Commenting on the findings, Justin S. Golub, MD, associate professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Columbia University, New York, said the study supports earlier research and suggests a “robust” association between hearing loss and dementia.

“The particular advantage of this study was that it was high quality and nationally representative,” Dr. Golub said. “It is also among a smaller set of studies that have shown hearing aid use to be associated with lower risk of dementia.”

Although not statistically significant, researchers did find increasing prevalence of dementia among people with only mild hearing loss, and clinicians should take note, said Dr. Golub, who was not involved with this study.

“We would expect the relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia to be weaker than severe hearing loss and dementia and, as a result, it might take more participants to show an association among the mild group,” Dr. Golub said.

“Even though this particular study did not specifically find a relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia, I would still recommend people to start treating their hearing loss when it is early,” Dr. Golub added.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Golub reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is 61% higher among older people with moderate to severe hearing loss compared with those with normal hearing, new national data show.

Investigators also found that even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and that hearing aid use was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence.

“Every 10-decibel increase in hearing loss was associated with 16% greater prevalence of dementia, such that prevalence of dementia in older adults with moderate or greater hearing loss was 61% higher than prevalence in those with normal hearing,” lead investigator Alison Huang, PhD, senior research associate in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and core faculty in the Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Dose-dependent effect

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 2,413 community-dwelling participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, continuous panel study of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.

Data from the study were collected during in-home interviews, setting it apart from previous work that relied on data collected in a clinical setting, Dr. Huang said.

“This study was able to capture more vulnerable populations, such as the oldest old and older adults with disabilities, typically excluded from prior epidemiologic studies of the hearing loss–dementia association that use clinic-based data collection, which only captures people who have the ability and means to get to clinics,” Dr. Huang said.

Weighted hearing loss prevalence was 36.7% for mild and 29.8% for moderate to severe hearing loss, and weighted prevalence of dementia was 10.3%.

Those with moderate to severe hearing loss were 61% more likely to have dementia than those with normal hearing (prevalence ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.38).

Dementia prevalence increased with increasing severity of hearing loss: normal hearing: 6.19% (95% CI, 4.31-8.80); mild hearing loss: 8.93% (95% CI, 6.99-11.34); moderate/severe hearing loss: 16.52% (95% CI, 13.81-19.64). But only moderate to severe hearing loss showed a statistically significant association with dementia (P = .02).

Dementia prevalence increased 16% per 10-decibel increase in hearing loss (prevalence ratio 1.16; P < .001).

Among the 853 individuals in the study with moderate to severe hearing loss, those who used hearing aids (n = 414) had a 32% lower risk of dementia compared with those who didn’t use assistive devices (prevalence ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00). This news organization last month reported on similar data published in JAMA Neurology suggesting that hearing aids reduce dementia risk.

“With this study, we were able to refine our understanding of the strength of the hearing loss–dementia association in a study more representative of older adults in the United States,” said Dr. Huang.
 

Robust association

Commenting on the findings, Justin S. Golub, MD, associate professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Columbia University, New York, said the study supports earlier research and suggests a “robust” association between hearing loss and dementia.

“The particular advantage of this study was that it was high quality and nationally representative,” Dr. Golub said. “It is also among a smaller set of studies that have shown hearing aid use to be associated with lower risk of dementia.”

Although not statistically significant, researchers did find increasing prevalence of dementia among people with only mild hearing loss, and clinicians should take note, said Dr. Golub, who was not involved with this study.

“We would expect the relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia to be weaker than severe hearing loss and dementia and, as a result, it might take more participants to show an association among the mild group,” Dr. Golub said.

“Even though this particular study did not specifically find a relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia, I would still recommend people to start treating their hearing loss when it is early,” Dr. Golub added.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Golub reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is 61% higher among older people with moderate to severe hearing loss compared with those with normal hearing, new national data show.

Investigators also found that even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and that hearing aid use was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence.

“Every 10-decibel increase in hearing loss was associated with 16% greater prevalence of dementia, such that prevalence of dementia in older adults with moderate or greater hearing loss was 61% higher than prevalence in those with normal hearing,” lead investigator Alison Huang, PhD, senior research associate in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and core faculty in the Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Dose-dependent effect

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 2,413 community-dwelling participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, continuous panel study of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.

Data from the study were collected during in-home interviews, setting it apart from previous work that relied on data collected in a clinical setting, Dr. Huang said.

“This study was able to capture more vulnerable populations, such as the oldest old and older adults with disabilities, typically excluded from prior epidemiologic studies of the hearing loss–dementia association that use clinic-based data collection, which only captures people who have the ability and means to get to clinics,” Dr. Huang said.

Weighted hearing loss prevalence was 36.7% for mild and 29.8% for moderate to severe hearing loss, and weighted prevalence of dementia was 10.3%.

Those with moderate to severe hearing loss were 61% more likely to have dementia than those with normal hearing (prevalence ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.38).

Dementia prevalence increased with increasing severity of hearing loss: normal hearing: 6.19% (95% CI, 4.31-8.80); mild hearing loss: 8.93% (95% CI, 6.99-11.34); moderate/severe hearing loss: 16.52% (95% CI, 13.81-19.64). But only moderate to severe hearing loss showed a statistically significant association with dementia (P = .02).

Dementia prevalence increased 16% per 10-decibel increase in hearing loss (prevalence ratio 1.16; P < .001).

Among the 853 individuals in the study with moderate to severe hearing loss, those who used hearing aids (n = 414) had a 32% lower risk of dementia compared with those who didn’t use assistive devices (prevalence ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00). This news organization last month reported on similar data published in JAMA Neurology suggesting that hearing aids reduce dementia risk.

“With this study, we were able to refine our understanding of the strength of the hearing loss–dementia association in a study more representative of older adults in the United States,” said Dr. Huang.
 

Robust association

Commenting on the findings, Justin S. Golub, MD, associate professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Columbia University, New York, said the study supports earlier research and suggests a “robust” association between hearing loss and dementia.

“The particular advantage of this study was that it was high quality and nationally representative,” Dr. Golub said. “It is also among a smaller set of studies that have shown hearing aid use to be associated with lower risk of dementia.”

Although not statistically significant, researchers did find increasing prevalence of dementia among people with only mild hearing loss, and clinicians should take note, said Dr. Golub, who was not involved with this study.

“We would expect the relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia to be weaker than severe hearing loss and dementia and, as a result, it might take more participants to show an association among the mild group,” Dr. Golub said.

“Even though this particular study did not specifically find a relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia, I would still recommend people to start treating their hearing loss when it is early,” Dr. Golub added.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Golub reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Overall survival has improved in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but those with HIV infection can expect to live shorter lives than their uninfected counterparts, based on the first such analysis of the American College of Surgeons’ National Cancer Database.

One-year overall survival for all patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), 74.9% in 2004-2007, rose by 6.4 percentage points to 81.3% in 2016-2018, with the use of ART for HIV starting in 2008. Two-year survival was up by an even larger 8.3 percentage points: 68.0% to 76.3%, said Amar D. Desai of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Since HIV-infected patients represented a much lower 46.7% of the Kaposi’s population in 2016-2018 than in 2004-2007 (70.5%), “better outcomes for all KS patients likely reflects advancements in ART, preventing many HIV+ patients from progressing to AIDS, changes in clinical practice with earlier treatment start, and more off-label treatments,” they wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Overall survival rates for the 10,027 patients with KS with data available in the National Cancer Database were 77.9% at 1 year and 72.4% at 2 years. HIV status had a significant (P < .0074) effect over the entire study period: One-year survival rates were 88.9% for HIV-negative and 74.5% for HIV-positive patients, and 2-year rates were 83.0% (HIV-negative) and 69.3% (HIV-positive), the investigators reported in what they called “the largest analysis since the advent of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 2008.”

The improvement in overall survival, along with the continued differences in survival between HIV infected and noninfected patients, indicate that “dermatologists, as part of a multidisciplinary team including oncologists and infectious disease physicians, can play significant roles in early KS diagnosis,” Mr. Desai and Dr. Lipner said.

Mr. Desai had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, and BelleTorus Corporation.

Overall survival has improved in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but those with HIV infection can expect to live shorter lives than their uninfected counterparts, based on the first such analysis of the American College of Surgeons’ National Cancer Database.

One-year overall survival for all patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), 74.9% in 2004-2007, rose by 6.4 percentage points to 81.3% in 2016-2018, with the use of ART for HIV starting in 2008. Two-year survival was up by an even larger 8.3 percentage points: 68.0% to 76.3%, said Amar D. Desai of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Since HIV-infected patients represented a much lower 46.7% of the Kaposi’s population in 2016-2018 than in 2004-2007 (70.5%), “better outcomes for all KS patients likely reflects advancements in ART, preventing many HIV+ patients from progressing to AIDS, changes in clinical practice with earlier treatment start, and more off-label treatments,” they wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Overall survival rates for the 10,027 patients with KS with data available in the National Cancer Database were 77.9% at 1 year and 72.4% at 2 years. HIV status had a significant (P < .0074) effect over the entire study period: One-year survival rates were 88.9% for HIV-negative and 74.5% for HIV-positive patients, and 2-year rates were 83.0% (HIV-negative) and 69.3% (HIV-positive), the investigators reported in what they called “the largest analysis since the advent of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 2008.”

The improvement in overall survival, along with the continued differences in survival between HIV infected and noninfected patients, indicate that “dermatologists, as part of a multidisciplinary team including oncologists and infectious disease physicians, can play significant roles in early KS diagnosis,” Mr. Desai and Dr. Lipner said.

Mr. Desai had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, and BelleTorus Corporation.

Overall survival has improved in patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma since the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but those with HIV infection can expect to live shorter lives than their uninfected counterparts, based on the first such analysis of the American College of Surgeons’ National Cancer Database.

One-year overall survival for all patients with Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), 74.9% in 2004-2007, rose by 6.4 percentage points to 81.3% in 2016-2018, with the use of ART for HIV starting in 2008. Two-year survival was up by an even larger 8.3 percentage points: 68.0% to 76.3%, said Amar D. Desai of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Since HIV-infected patients represented a much lower 46.7% of the Kaposi’s population in 2016-2018 than in 2004-2007 (70.5%), “better outcomes for all KS patients likely reflects advancements in ART, preventing many HIV+ patients from progressing to AIDS, changes in clinical practice with earlier treatment start, and more off-label treatments,” they wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Overall survival rates for the 10,027 patients with KS with data available in the National Cancer Database were 77.9% at 1 year and 72.4% at 2 years. HIV status had a significant (P < .0074) effect over the entire study period: One-year survival rates were 88.9% for HIV-negative and 74.5% for HIV-positive patients, and 2-year rates were 83.0% (HIV-negative) and 69.3% (HIV-positive), the investigators reported in what they called “the largest analysis since the advent of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 2008.”

The improvement in overall survival, along with the continued differences in survival between HIV infected and noninfected patients, indicate that “dermatologists, as part of a multidisciplinary team including oncologists and infectious disease physicians, can play significant roles in early KS diagnosis,” Mr. Desai and Dr. Lipner said.

Mr. Desai had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Lipner has served as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, and BelleTorus Corporation.