User login
-
Two New Studies on Benzoyl Peroxide Provide Reassuring Data on Safety
Two .
Earlier this year, controversy erupted after an independent lab Valisure petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recall acne products with BP because it found extremely high levels of the carcinogen benzene. In the research, the lab directors contended that the products can form over 800 times the “conditionally restricted” FDA concentration limit of 2 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, with both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) products affected. The issue, according to the lab’s report, is one of degradation, not contamination; BP can decompose into benzene. Exposures to benzene have been linked with a higher risk for leukemia and other blood cancers.
(“Conditionally restricted” means that the maximum of 2 ppm only applies to a drug product in which the use of benzene is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, according to FDA guidance.)
Critics of the report questioned the method used to test the products, calling for more “real-world” use data, and said the temperature used may not be what is expected with everyday use.
Now, both new studies are reassuring about the safety of the products, John Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a telephone interview. He was a coauthor of both studies. A leading dermatologist not involved in the new research reviewed the findings and agreed.
One study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey compared blood levels of benzene between 14 people who had used BP products and 65 people without a history of BP product use, finding no difference between the groups .
The other, much larger study analyzed electronic health records of more than 27,000 patients with acne using BP products, comparing them with more than 27,000 controls who did not use the products. The patients were followed for 10 years after the use of BP products began, and no increased risk for cancer, either blood cancers or solid tumors, was found.
The studies were recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Both studies are well done,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, former chair of the Department of Dermatology and senior vice president for academic affairs at Henry Ford Health, Detroit. Dr. Lim, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology, reviewed the results of both studies.
“These studies indicate that [a] report of detection of benzene in [BP] products exposed to high temperature does not have any relevant clinical significance, both in terms of blood levels and in terms of internal cancer,” Dr. Lim said. “This is consistent with the clinical experience of practicing dermatologists; no internal side effects have been observed in patients using [BP products].”
Further Details
Under high temperatures, or over a long period, BP can decompose to benzene, a colorless, flammable liquid with a sweet odor. Benzene is formed from natural processes such as forest fires and volcanoes, according to the American Cancer Society, and is found in the air, cigarette smoke, some foods (at low levels), and contaminated drinking water. It’s one of the 20 widely used chemicals involved in making plastics, resins, detergents, and pesticides, among other products.
In the study evaluating blood levels, the researchers matched 14 people who used BP products currently with 65 controls who did not. Five (36%) of those using the products had detectable blood levels; 21 (32%) of those who did not use them did. There was no association between BP exposure and detectable blood benzene levels (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .80).
In the larger study, the researchers used the TriNetX US Collaborative Network database, comparing more than 27,000 patients treated with BP products for acne with more than 27,000 patients aged 12-40 years who had a diagnosis of nevus or seborrheic keratosis with no exposure to prescribed BP or any diagnosis of acne, hidradenitis suppurativa, or rosacea. The researchers looked at the database over the subsequent 10 years to determine the risk for either blood cancers or internal malignancies.
Compared with patients diagnosed with nevus or seborrheic keratosis, those with acne treated with BP had no significant difference in the risk for lymphoma (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00), leukemia (HR, 0.91), any lymphoma or leukemia (HR, 1.04), and internal malignancies (HR, 0.93).
The findings suggest no increased risk for malignancy, the researchers said, although they acknowledged study limitations, such as possible misclassification of BP exposure due to OTC availability and other issues.
Value of BP Treatments
BP is the “go-to” acne treatment, as Dr. Barbieri pointed out. “It’s probably the number one treatment for acne,” and there’s no substitute for it and it’s one of the most effective topical acne treatments, he noted.
Despite the reassuring findings, Dr. Barbieri repeated advice he gave soon after the Valisure report was released. Use common sense and don’t store BP-containing products in hot cars or other hot environments. In warmer climates, refrigeration could be considered, he said. Discard old products. Manufacturers should use cold-chain storage from the manufacturing site to retail or pharmacy sale sites, he added.
FDA and Citizen Petition Status
Asked about the status of the petition from Valisure, an FDA spokesperson said: “The FDA does not comment on the status of pending petitions.”
Dr. Barbieri and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. There were no funding sources for either of the two studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two .
Earlier this year, controversy erupted after an independent lab Valisure petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recall acne products with BP because it found extremely high levels of the carcinogen benzene. In the research, the lab directors contended that the products can form over 800 times the “conditionally restricted” FDA concentration limit of 2 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, with both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) products affected. The issue, according to the lab’s report, is one of degradation, not contamination; BP can decompose into benzene. Exposures to benzene have been linked with a higher risk for leukemia and other blood cancers.
(“Conditionally restricted” means that the maximum of 2 ppm only applies to a drug product in which the use of benzene is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, according to FDA guidance.)
Critics of the report questioned the method used to test the products, calling for more “real-world” use data, and said the temperature used may not be what is expected with everyday use.
Now, both new studies are reassuring about the safety of the products, John Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a telephone interview. He was a coauthor of both studies. A leading dermatologist not involved in the new research reviewed the findings and agreed.
One study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey compared blood levels of benzene between 14 people who had used BP products and 65 people without a history of BP product use, finding no difference between the groups .
The other, much larger study analyzed electronic health records of more than 27,000 patients with acne using BP products, comparing them with more than 27,000 controls who did not use the products. The patients were followed for 10 years after the use of BP products began, and no increased risk for cancer, either blood cancers or solid tumors, was found.
The studies were recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Both studies are well done,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, former chair of the Department of Dermatology and senior vice president for academic affairs at Henry Ford Health, Detroit. Dr. Lim, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology, reviewed the results of both studies.
“These studies indicate that [a] report of detection of benzene in [BP] products exposed to high temperature does not have any relevant clinical significance, both in terms of blood levels and in terms of internal cancer,” Dr. Lim said. “This is consistent with the clinical experience of practicing dermatologists; no internal side effects have been observed in patients using [BP products].”
Further Details
Under high temperatures, or over a long period, BP can decompose to benzene, a colorless, flammable liquid with a sweet odor. Benzene is formed from natural processes such as forest fires and volcanoes, according to the American Cancer Society, and is found in the air, cigarette smoke, some foods (at low levels), and contaminated drinking water. It’s one of the 20 widely used chemicals involved in making plastics, resins, detergents, and pesticides, among other products.
In the study evaluating blood levels, the researchers matched 14 people who used BP products currently with 65 controls who did not. Five (36%) of those using the products had detectable blood levels; 21 (32%) of those who did not use them did. There was no association between BP exposure and detectable blood benzene levels (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .80).
In the larger study, the researchers used the TriNetX US Collaborative Network database, comparing more than 27,000 patients treated with BP products for acne with more than 27,000 patients aged 12-40 years who had a diagnosis of nevus or seborrheic keratosis with no exposure to prescribed BP or any diagnosis of acne, hidradenitis suppurativa, or rosacea. The researchers looked at the database over the subsequent 10 years to determine the risk for either blood cancers or internal malignancies.
Compared with patients diagnosed with nevus or seborrheic keratosis, those with acne treated with BP had no significant difference in the risk for lymphoma (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00), leukemia (HR, 0.91), any lymphoma or leukemia (HR, 1.04), and internal malignancies (HR, 0.93).
The findings suggest no increased risk for malignancy, the researchers said, although they acknowledged study limitations, such as possible misclassification of BP exposure due to OTC availability and other issues.
Value of BP Treatments
BP is the “go-to” acne treatment, as Dr. Barbieri pointed out. “It’s probably the number one treatment for acne,” and there’s no substitute for it and it’s one of the most effective topical acne treatments, he noted.
Despite the reassuring findings, Dr. Barbieri repeated advice he gave soon after the Valisure report was released. Use common sense and don’t store BP-containing products in hot cars or other hot environments. In warmer climates, refrigeration could be considered, he said. Discard old products. Manufacturers should use cold-chain storage from the manufacturing site to retail or pharmacy sale sites, he added.
FDA and Citizen Petition Status
Asked about the status of the petition from Valisure, an FDA spokesperson said: “The FDA does not comment on the status of pending petitions.”
Dr. Barbieri and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. There were no funding sources for either of the two studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two .
Earlier this year, controversy erupted after an independent lab Valisure petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to recall acne products with BP because it found extremely high levels of the carcinogen benzene. In the research, the lab directors contended that the products can form over 800 times the “conditionally restricted” FDA concentration limit of 2 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, with both prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) products affected. The issue, according to the lab’s report, is one of degradation, not contamination; BP can decompose into benzene. Exposures to benzene have been linked with a higher risk for leukemia and other blood cancers.
(“Conditionally restricted” means that the maximum of 2 ppm only applies to a drug product in which the use of benzene is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, according to FDA guidance.)
Critics of the report questioned the method used to test the products, calling for more “real-world” use data, and said the temperature used may not be what is expected with everyday use.
Now, both new studies are reassuring about the safety of the products, John Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a telephone interview. He was a coauthor of both studies. A leading dermatologist not involved in the new research reviewed the findings and agreed.
One study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey compared blood levels of benzene between 14 people who had used BP products and 65 people without a history of BP product use, finding no difference between the groups .
The other, much larger study analyzed electronic health records of more than 27,000 patients with acne using BP products, comparing them with more than 27,000 controls who did not use the products. The patients were followed for 10 years after the use of BP products began, and no increased risk for cancer, either blood cancers or solid tumors, was found.
The studies were recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Both studies are well done,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, former chair of the Department of Dermatology and senior vice president for academic affairs at Henry Ford Health, Detroit. Dr. Lim, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology, reviewed the results of both studies.
“These studies indicate that [a] report of detection of benzene in [BP] products exposed to high temperature does not have any relevant clinical significance, both in terms of blood levels and in terms of internal cancer,” Dr. Lim said. “This is consistent with the clinical experience of practicing dermatologists; no internal side effects have been observed in patients using [BP products].”
Further Details
Under high temperatures, or over a long period, BP can decompose to benzene, a colorless, flammable liquid with a sweet odor. Benzene is formed from natural processes such as forest fires and volcanoes, according to the American Cancer Society, and is found in the air, cigarette smoke, some foods (at low levels), and contaminated drinking water. It’s one of the 20 widely used chemicals involved in making plastics, resins, detergents, and pesticides, among other products.
In the study evaluating blood levels, the researchers matched 14 people who used BP products currently with 65 controls who did not. Five (36%) of those using the products had detectable blood levels; 21 (32%) of those who did not use them did. There was no association between BP exposure and detectable blood benzene levels (odds ratio, 1.12; P = .80).
In the larger study, the researchers used the TriNetX US Collaborative Network database, comparing more than 27,000 patients treated with BP products for acne with more than 27,000 patients aged 12-40 years who had a diagnosis of nevus or seborrheic keratosis with no exposure to prescribed BP or any diagnosis of acne, hidradenitis suppurativa, or rosacea. The researchers looked at the database over the subsequent 10 years to determine the risk for either blood cancers or internal malignancies.
Compared with patients diagnosed with nevus or seborrheic keratosis, those with acne treated with BP had no significant difference in the risk for lymphoma (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00), leukemia (HR, 0.91), any lymphoma or leukemia (HR, 1.04), and internal malignancies (HR, 0.93).
The findings suggest no increased risk for malignancy, the researchers said, although they acknowledged study limitations, such as possible misclassification of BP exposure due to OTC availability and other issues.
Value of BP Treatments
BP is the “go-to” acne treatment, as Dr. Barbieri pointed out. “It’s probably the number one treatment for acne,” and there’s no substitute for it and it’s one of the most effective topical acne treatments, he noted.
Despite the reassuring findings, Dr. Barbieri repeated advice he gave soon after the Valisure report was released. Use common sense and don’t store BP-containing products in hot cars or other hot environments. In warmer climates, refrigeration could be considered, he said. Discard old products. Manufacturers should use cold-chain storage from the manufacturing site to retail or pharmacy sale sites, he added.
FDA and Citizen Petition Status
Asked about the status of the petition from Valisure, an FDA spokesperson said: “The FDA does not comment on the status of pending petitions.”
Dr. Barbieri and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. There were no funding sources for either of the two studies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hemophilia: Novel Tx Also Cuts Bleeding in Kids
“In this study, once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa provided high sustained factor VIII activity and highly efficacious protection against bleeding episodes in children with severe hemophilia A, a population in which this goal has been difficult to achieve without burdensome treatment regimens,” report the authors in the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are from the phase 3, open-label XTEND-Kids study, in which first author Lynn Malec, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive Center for Bleeding Disorders and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at The Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, and colleagues enrolled 74 male pediatric patients with hemophilia A, including 38 under the age of 6 and 36 ages 6-12.
The participants received prophylaxis with once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa (50 IU per kg of body weight), for 52 weeks.
Prior to the treatment period, all patients had received factor VIII replacement therapy, with the exception of one who received the therapy on demand. Most (70%) received extended half-life products, such as doses twice a week or every 3 days, and the remaining 30% received standard half-life products, with dose regimens ranging from every 2 days to twice a week.
Over the course of the year-long study, none of the patients developed factor VIII inhibitors, neutralizing antibodies, a common complication in hemophilia A that prevents factor VIII replacement treatment from working to form clots.
In addition, no serious adverse events occurred that were determined to be related to efanesoctocog alfa.
“No inhibitors to factor VIII developed, most adverse events were not serious, and no adverse events led to discontinuation of efanesoctocog alfa,” the authors report.
In terms of efficacy, among 73 patients who were treated according to the protocol, the median annualized bleeding rate was 0.00 and the model-based mean rate was 0.61.
Overall, 47 patients (64%) experienced no treated bleeding episodes during the study, 65 (88%) had no spontaneous bleeding episodes, and 61 (82%) had no episodes of bleeding into joints.
Of 43 bleeding episodes, most (41; 95%) resolved with a single injection of efanesoctocog alfa.
Of note, “shortening the weekly administration interval was not deemed to be necessary in any patient during this study,” the authors add.
In comparison, other studies of children receiving other factor VIII products, including damoctocog alfa pegol, rurioctocog alfa pegol, and efmoroctocog alfa, show higher annualized bleeding rates of 2.9, 2.0, and 1.96, respectively, and studies showed the percentages of patients with no bleeding with those products were 23%, 38%, and 46%, respectively, compared with the 64% in the current study of efanesoctocog alfa.
“Although these clinical study results cannot be directly compared because of the differences in patient populations and study designs, the XTEND-Kids study showed favorable bleeding protection with efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis as compared with these extended half-life factor VIII products,” the authors report.
Data on the once-weekly monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which has the important benefit of being administered subcutaneously instead of intravenously, is limited in children under age 12 with severe hemophilia A and without factor VIII inhibitors, the authors note.
However, the mean annualized bleeding rate with efanesoctocog alfa appears improved compared with that observed in a small Japanese study of 13 children who received emicizumab prophylaxis every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, which showed annualized rates of treated bleeding episodes of 1.3 and 0.7 with the respective emicizumab regimens.
Results Compare With Findings in Adults
The results are similar to those reported among adults in the previous XTEND-1 phase 3 study, which was the basis for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in 2023 for routine prevention and on-demand treatment for the control of bleeding episodes, in addition to perioperative surgery for adults.
That approval was extended to children as well at the time, based on earlier interim results from the XTEND-Kids trial.
The annualized bleeding rate among adult patients treated with efanesoctocog alfa decreased from 2.96 to 0.69 over the 52 weeks, which was a significantly greater improvement compared with prestudy prophylaxis with conventional factor VIII prophylaxis (P < .001).
In children and adults alike, the decreased bleeding events were accompanied by improvements in physical health, pain, and joint health.
“Weekly prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa has the potential to provide long-term preservation of joint health,” the authors conclude.
Commenting in an editorial published concurrently with the study, Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Katharine Dormandy Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, Royal Free Hospital, London, England, underscored the need for a longer duration of prophylaxis, particularly in children.
“In children, the factor VIII protein has a shorter half-life than in adults, and intravenous administration of coagulation factors is particularly challenging, owing to poor venous access,” she explains.
“In this context, a notable outcome in [the study] is the achievement of once-weekly prophylaxis in children with sustained factor VIII levels through the week, which augurs well for protection in the context of delayed or missed doses.”
Dr. Chowdary adds that limitations include that “the study participants had pre-existing tolerance of factor VIII, because only those with previous exposure to factor VIII and without inhibitors were eligible for enrollment.”
“As such, immunogenicity needs to be assessed in other patients, especially those with no previous treatment with factor VIII.”
Further commenting to this news organization, Dr. Chowdary emphasized “the key takeaway for patients with hemophilia is that the notion of a single, lifelong treatment is outdated.”
“Regular reviews and adjustments to prophylaxis are necessary to ensure optimal control of hemophilia, aiming for zero bleeds each year,” Dr. Chowdary noted.
Furthermore, “the treatment regimen to achieve this must also align with the life goals of both patients and their parents,” she said.
The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. The authors’ and Dr. Chowdary’s disclosures are published with the study and editorial, respectively.
“In this study, once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa provided high sustained factor VIII activity and highly efficacious protection against bleeding episodes in children with severe hemophilia A, a population in which this goal has been difficult to achieve without burdensome treatment regimens,” report the authors in the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are from the phase 3, open-label XTEND-Kids study, in which first author Lynn Malec, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive Center for Bleeding Disorders and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at The Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, and colleagues enrolled 74 male pediatric patients with hemophilia A, including 38 under the age of 6 and 36 ages 6-12.
The participants received prophylaxis with once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa (50 IU per kg of body weight), for 52 weeks.
Prior to the treatment period, all patients had received factor VIII replacement therapy, with the exception of one who received the therapy on demand. Most (70%) received extended half-life products, such as doses twice a week or every 3 days, and the remaining 30% received standard half-life products, with dose regimens ranging from every 2 days to twice a week.
Over the course of the year-long study, none of the patients developed factor VIII inhibitors, neutralizing antibodies, a common complication in hemophilia A that prevents factor VIII replacement treatment from working to form clots.
In addition, no serious adverse events occurred that were determined to be related to efanesoctocog alfa.
“No inhibitors to factor VIII developed, most adverse events were not serious, and no adverse events led to discontinuation of efanesoctocog alfa,” the authors report.
In terms of efficacy, among 73 patients who were treated according to the protocol, the median annualized bleeding rate was 0.00 and the model-based mean rate was 0.61.
Overall, 47 patients (64%) experienced no treated bleeding episodes during the study, 65 (88%) had no spontaneous bleeding episodes, and 61 (82%) had no episodes of bleeding into joints.
Of 43 bleeding episodes, most (41; 95%) resolved with a single injection of efanesoctocog alfa.
Of note, “shortening the weekly administration interval was not deemed to be necessary in any patient during this study,” the authors add.
In comparison, other studies of children receiving other factor VIII products, including damoctocog alfa pegol, rurioctocog alfa pegol, and efmoroctocog alfa, show higher annualized bleeding rates of 2.9, 2.0, and 1.96, respectively, and studies showed the percentages of patients with no bleeding with those products were 23%, 38%, and 46%, respectively, compared with the 64% in the current study of efanesoctocog alfa.
“Although these clinical study results cannot be directly compared because of the differences in patient populations and study designs, the XTEND-Kids study showed favorable bleeding protection with efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis as compared with these extended half-life factor VIII products,” the authors report.
Data on the once-weekly monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which has the important benefit of being administered subcutaneously instead of intravenously, is limited in children under age 12 with severe hemophilia A and without factor VIII inhibitors, the authors note.
However, the mean annualized bleeding rate with efanesoctocog alfa appears improved compared with that observed in a small Japanese study of 13 children who received emicizumab prophylaxis every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, which showed annualized rates of treated bleeding episodes of 1.3 and 0.7 with the respective emicizumab regimens.
Results Compare With Findings in Adults
The results are similar to those reported among adults in the previous XTEND-1 phase 3 study, which was the basis for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in 2023 for routine prevention and on-demand treatment for the control of bleeding episodes, in addition to perioperative surgery for adults.
That approval was extended to children as well at the time, based on earlier interim results from the XTEND-Kids trial.
The annualized bleeding rate among adult patients treated with efanesoctocog alfa decreased from 2.96 to 0.69 over the 52 weeks, which was a significantly greater improvement compared with prestudy prophylaxis with conventional factor VIII prophylaxis (P < .001).
In children and adults alike, the decreased bleeding events were accompanied by improvements in physical health, pain, and joint health.
“Weekly prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa has the potential to provide long-term preservation of joint health,” the authors conclude.
Commenting in an editorial published concurrently with the study, Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Katharine Dormandy Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, Royal Free Hospital, London, England, underscored the need for a longer duration of prophylaxis, particularly in children.
“In children, the factor VIII protein has a shorter half-life than in adults, and intravenous administration of coagulation factors is particularly challenging, owing to poor venous access,” she explains.
“In this context, a notable outcome in [the study] is the achievement of once-weekly prophylaxis in children with sustained factor VIII levels through the week, which augurs well for protection in the context of delayed or missed doses.”
Dr. Chowdary adds that limitations include that “the study participants had pre-existing tolerance of factor VIII, because only those with previous exposure to factor VIII and without inhibitors were eligible for enrollment.”
“As such, immunogenicity needs to be assessed in other patients, especially those with no previous treatment with factor VIII.”
Further commenting to this news organization, Dr. Chowdary emphasized “the key takeaway for patients with hemophilia is that the notion of a single, lifelong treatment is outdated.”
“Regular reviews and adjustments to prophylaxis are necessary to ensure optimal control of hemophilia, aiming for zero bleeds each year,” Dr. Chowdary noted.
Furthermore, “the treatment regimen to achieve this must also align with the life goals of both patients and their parents,” she said.
The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. The authors’ and Dr. Chowdary’s disclosures are published with the study and editorial, respectively.
“In this study, once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa provided high sustained factor VIII activity and highly efficacious protection against bleeding episodes in children with severe hemophilia A, a population in which this goal has been difficult to achieve without burdensome treatment regimens,” report the authors in the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
The results are from the phase 3, open-label XTEND-Kids study, in which first author Lynn Malec, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive Center for Bleeding Disorders and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at The Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, and colleagues enrolled 74 male pediatric patients with hemophilia A, including 38 under the age of 6 and 36 ages 6-12.
The participants received prophylaxis with once-weekly efanesoctocog alfa (50 IU per kg of body weight), for 52 weeks.
Prior to the treatment period, all patients had received factor VIII replacement therapy, with the exception of one who received the therapy on demand. Most (70%) received extended half-life products, such as doses twice a week or every 3 days, and the remaining 30% received standard half-life products, with dose regimens ranging from every 2 days to twice a week.
Over the course of the year-long study, none of the patients developed factor VIII inhibitors, neutralizing antibodies, a common complication in hemophilia A that prevents factor VIII replacement treatment from working to form clots.
In addition, no serious adverse events occurred that were determined to be related to efanesoctocog alfa.
“No inhibitors to factor VIII developed, most adverse events were not serious, and no adverse events led to discontinuation of efanesoctocog alfa,” the authors report.
In terms of efficacy, among 73 patients who were treated according to the protocol, the median annualized bleeding rate was 0.00 and the model-based mean rate was 0.61.
Overall, 47 patients (64%) experienced no treated bleeding episodes during the study, 65 (88%) had no spontaneous bleeding episodes, and 61 (82%) had no episodes of bleeding into joints.
Of 43 bleeding episodes, most (41; 95%) resolved with a single injection of efanesoctocog alfa.
Of note, “shortening the weekly administration interval was not deemed to be necessary in any patient during this study,” the authors add.
In comparison, other studies of children receiving other factor VIII products, including damoctocog alfa pegol, rurioctocog alfa pegol, and efmoroctocog alfa, show higher annualized bleeding rates of 2.9, 2.0, and 1.96, respectively, and studies showed the percentages of patients with no bleeding with those products were 23%, 38%, and 46%, respectively, compared with the 64% in the current study of efanesoctocog alfa.
“Although these clinical study results cannot be directly compared because of the differences in patient populations and study designs, the XTEND-Kids study showed favorable bleeding protection with efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis as compared with these extended half-life factor VIII products,” the authors report.
Data on the once-weekly monoclonal antibody emicizumab, which has the important benefit of being administered subcutaneously instead of intravenously, is limited in children under age 12 with severe hemophilia A and without factor VIII inhibitors, the authors note.
However, the mean annualized bleeding rate with efanesoctocog alfa appears improved compared with that observed in a small Japanese study of 13 children who received emicizumab prophylaxis every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, which showed annualized rates of treated bleeding episodes of 1.3 and 0.7 with the respective emicizumab regimens.
Results Compare With Findings in Adults
The results are similar to those reported among adults in the previous XTEND-1 phase 3 study, which was the basis for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug in 2023 for routine prevention and on-demand treatment for the control of bleeding episodes, in addition to perioperative surgery for adults.
That approval was extended to children as well at the time, based on earlier interim results from the XTEND-Kids trial.
The annualized bleeding rate among adult patients treated with efanesoctocog alfa decreased from 2.96 to 0.69 over the 52 weeks, which was a significantly greater improvement compared with prestudy prophylaxis with conventional factor VIII prophylaxis (P < .001).
In children and adults alike, the decreased bleeding events were accompanied by improvements in physical health, pain, and joint health.
“Weekly prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa has the potential to provide long-term preservation of joint health,” the authors conclude.
Commenting in an editorial published concurrently with the study, Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Katharine Dormandy Haemophilia and Thrombosis Centre, Royal Free Hospital, London, England, underscored the need for a longer duration of prophylaxis, particularly in children.
“In children, the factor VIII protein has a shorter half-life than in adults, and intravenous administration of coagulation factors is particularly challenging, owing to poor venous access,” she explains.
“In this context, a notable outcome in [the study] is the achievement of once-weekly prophylaxis in children with sustained factor VIII levels through the week, which augurs well for protection in the context of delayed or missed doses.”
Dr. Chowdary adds that limitations include that “the study participants had pre-existing tolerance of factor VIII, because only those with previous exposure to factor VIII and without inhibitors were eligible for enrollment.”
“As such, immunogenicity needs to be assessed in other patients, especially those with no previous treatment with factor VIII.”
Further commenting to this news organization, Dr. Chowdary emphasized “the key takeaway for patients with hemophilia is that the notion of a single, lifelong treatment is outdated.”
“Regular reviews and adjustments to prophylaxis are necessary to ensure optimal control of hemophilia, aiming for zero bleeds each year,” Dr. Chowdary noted.
Furthermore, “the treatment regimen to achieve this must also align with the life goals of both patients and their parents,” she said.
The study was supported by Sanofi and Sobi. The authors’ and Dr. Chowdary’s disclosures are published with the study and editorial, respectively.
Greater Transparency of Oncologists’ Pharma Relationships Needed
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”
Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.
What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.
Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest
To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.
“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”
Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.
From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.
Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.
The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.
“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.
Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect
A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.
That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.
“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”
The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.
Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.
The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.
A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments
While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.
For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.
The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.
Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.
“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”
For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.
From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.
The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.
When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.
“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”
Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.
“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.
“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”
Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”
Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.
FROM ASCO 2024
Push, Fail, Push Harder: Olympic Athletes Who Became MDs
Your odds are 1 in 562,400.
Or, as Bill Mallon, the past president and cofounder of the International Society of Olympic Historians, has said, aspiring athletes have a 0.00000178% chance of making the Games.
Now imagine the odds of making the Olympics and then going on to become a physician. And maybe it’s not surprising that those who have done it credit the training they received as Olympic athletes as key to their success in medicine.
“Dealing with poor outcomes and having to get back up and try again,” said Olympian-turned-physician Ogonna Nnamani Silva, MD, “that reiterative process of trying to obtain perfection in your craft — that’s athletics 101.”
This connection isn’t just anecdotal. It has been discussed in medical journals and examined in surveys. The consensus is that, yes, there are specific characteristics elite athletes develop that physicians — regardless of their athletic background — can learn to apply to their work in medicine.
Maybe it’s something else, too: Certain mindsets don’t worry about long odds. They seek out crucibles again and again without concern for the heat involved. Because the outcome is worth it.
Here are four athletes who became high-performing physicians and how they did it.
The Gymnast/The Pediatric Surgeon
“Gymnastics helped me build a skill set for my career,” said Canadian Olympic gymnast-turned-pediatric orthopedic surgeon Lise Leveille, MD. “It led me to be successful as a medical student and ultimately obtain the job that I want in the area that I want working with the people that I want.”
The skills Dr. Leveille prizes include time management, teamwork, goal setting, and a strong work ethic, all of which propel an athlete to the crucial moment of “performance.”
“I miss performing,” said Dr. Leveille. “It defines who I was at that time. I miss being able to work toward something and then deliver when it counted” — like when she qualified for the 1998 Commonwealth games in Kuala Lumpur at 16.
The Canadian national team came third at that event, and Dr. Leveille built on that success at the Pan American Games, taking gold on the balance beam and as a team, and then qualifying for the Olympics at the 1999 World Championships. She competed in the team and five individual events at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.
Though Dr. Leveille started gymnastics at age 3, her parents, both teachers, instilled in her the importance of education. Gymnastics opened academic doors for her, like being recruited to Stanford where she completed her undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering and human biology in 2004 before entering medical school at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
Now 41, Dr. Leveille accepts that she’ll never nail another gymnastics routine, but she channels that love of sticking the landing into the operating room at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, also in Vancouver.
“Some of the unknown variables within the operating room and how you deal with those unknown variables is exactly like showing up for a competition,” Dr. Leveille said. “When I have one of those cases where I have to perform under pressure and everything comes together, that’s exactly like nailing your routine when it counts most.”
The Pole Vaulter/The Emergency Medicine Physician
Tunisian American pole vaulter Leila Ben-Youssef, MD, had what could be considered a disappointing showing at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. She collapsed from severe abdominal pain during the opening ceremony and had to be carried out. On the day of competition, she was still suffering. “I could barely run down the runway,” she recalled. “I cleared one bar. I was just happy to have been able to do that.”
When Dr. Ben-Youssef, who grew up in Montana, returned home, she underwent emergency surgery to remove the source of the pain: A large, benign tumor.
While some might be devastated by such bad luck, Dr. Ben-Youssef focuses on the success of her journey — the fact that she qualified and competed at the Olympics in the first place. The ability to accept setbacks is something she said comes with the territory.
“As an athlete, you’re always facing injury, and someone told me early in my career that the best athletes are the ones that know how to manage their expectations because it’s bound to happen,” she said. “So, there is disappointment. But recognizing that I did qualify for the Olympics despite being uncomfortable and having issues, I was still able to meet my goal.”
Prior to the games, Dr. Ben-Youssef had been accepted into medical school at the University of Washington School of Medicine at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Thankfully, the school was supportive of Dr. Ben-Youssef’s Olympic dreams and allowed her to begin her studies a month behind her class. Upon her return from Beijing, she spent the rest of her medical school training with her head down, grinding.
“Medicine is hard,” said Dr. Ben-Youssef. “It’s grueling both physically and emotionally, and I think that’s similar to any elite sport. You’re going to deal with challenges and disappointment. I think having gone through that as an athlete really prepares you for the medical education system, for residency, and even for day-to-day work.”
Now a physician working in emergency medicine in Hawaii, Dr. Ben-Youssef feels the setbacks she experienced as an athlete help her connect with her patients as they deal with health challenges.
And as a volunteer pole vaulting coach for a local high school, Dr. Ben-Youssef has been able to surround herself with the positive, joyful energy of athletes. “Emergency medicine is often a sad place,” she said. “But in a sports environment, if people don’t succeed or are injured, there is still that energy there that strives for something, and it’s so fun to be around.”
The Rower/The Sports Medicine Specialist
Three-time US Olympic rower Genevra “Gevvie” Stone, MD, wanted to be a doctor even before she gave a thought to rowing. She was in eighth grade when she dislocated her knee for the third time. Her parents took her to a pediatric orthopedist, and Dr. Stone, according to her mom, declared: “That’s what I want to do when I grow up.”
“I’m a very stubborn person, and when I make a decision like that, I usually don’t veer from it,” Dr. Stone said.
That laser focus combined with a deep love of both sports and medicine has served Dr. Stone well. “Becoming a doctor and becoming an Olympian require you to dedicate not just your time and your energy but also your passion to that focus,” she said. “In both, you aren’t going to be successful if you don’t love what you’re doing. Finding the reward in it is what makes it achievable.”
Dr. Stone actually resisted rowing until she was 16 because both of her parents were Olympians in the sport and met on the US team. “It was their thing, and I didn’t want it to be my thing,” she recalled.
Nonetheless, Dr. Stone easily fell into the sport in her late teens and was recruited by Princeton University. “I had grown up around Olympians and kind of took it for granted that if you worked hard enough and were decent at rowing, then you could be one of the best in the world, without really realizing how difficult it would be to achieve that,” she said.
Dr. Stone’s team won the NCAA Championship in 2006 and was invited to try out for the 2008 Olympic team at the US training center after she graduated from college. But she didn’t make it.
Instead, Dr. Stone entered medical school at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, thinking her competitive rowing career had come to end. But her love for the sport was still strong, and she realized she wasn’t finished.
After 2 years of medical school, Dr. Stone requested 2 years off so she might have another shot at making the Olympic team. The timing was right. She went to the London Olympics in 2012, graduated from medical school in 2014, and then took 2 more years off to train full time for the 2016 Olympics in Rio where she won silver.
At the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Dr. Stone took fifth place in the double sculls. While she continues to race the master’s circuit, she’s primarily dedicated to completing her sports medicine fellowship at University of Utah Health.
Fortunately, Dr. Stone’s parents, coaches, and teachers always supported her goals. “No one turned to me and told me I was crazy, just choose medicine or rowing,” she said. “Everyone said that if this is what you want to do, we’re here to support you, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without that support.”
The Volleyball Player/The Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Nnamani Silva’s journey to the Olympics was also paved with an extensive list of supporters, beginning with her parents. And she has taken that sense of collaboration, coordination, and teamwork into her medical career.
The daughter of Nigerian immigrants who came to the United States to escape civil war, Dr. Nnamani Silva said her parents embraced the American dream. “To see what they were able to do with hard work, dedication, and sacrifice, I had no choice but to work hard because I saw their example. And that love for and belief in America was so strong in my house growing up,” she said.
Dreams of practicing medicine came first. A severe asthmatic growing up, Dr. Nnamani Silva recalled having wonderful doctors. “I had so many emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” she said. “But the doctors always gave me hope, and they literally transformed my life. I thought if I could pass that on to my future patients, that would be the greatest honor of my life.”
Volleyball gave Dr. Nnamani Silva the opportunity to attend Stanford, and she took time off during her junior year to train and compete in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. She also played for the United States at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing where the team took silver. Afterward, she continued to play overseas for several years.
At 33, and with a newborn daughter, Dr. Nnamani Silva returned to her original goal of becoming a doctor. She attended the University of California, San Francisco, and is currently a resident in the Harvard Plastic Surgery Program. She includes her husband, parents, and in-laws in this achievement, whom she said “saved” her. “There is no chance I would have finished medical school and survived residency without them.”
As a volleyball player, Dr. Nnamani Silva said she “believes in teams wholeheartedly,” valuing the exchange of energy and skill that she feels brings out the best in people. As a medical student, she initially didn’t realize how her previous life would apply to teamwork in the operating room. But it soon became clear.
“In surgery, when you harness the talents of everyone around you and you create that synergy, it’s an amazing feeling,” she said. And the stakes are often high. “It requires a lot of focus, discipline, determination, and resilience because you’re going to be humbled all the time.” Something athletes know a little bit about.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Your odds are 1 in 562,400.
Or, as Bill Mallon, the past president and cofounder of the International Society of Olympic Historians, has said, aspiring athletes have a 0.00000178% chance of making the Games.
Now imagine the odds of making the Olympics and then going on to become a physician. And maybe it’s not surprising that those who have done it credit the training they received as Olympic athletes as key to their success in medicine.
“Dealing with poor outcomes and having to get back up and try again,” said Olympian-turned-physician Ogonna Nnamani Silva, MD, “that reiterative process of trying to obtain perfection in your craft — that’s athletics 101.”
This connection isn’t just anecdotal. It has been discussed in medical journals and examined in surveys. The consensus is that, yes, there are specific characteristics elite athletes develop that physicians — regardless of their athletic background — can learn to apply to their work in medicine.
Maybe it’s something else, too: Certain mindsets don’t worry about long odds. They seek out crucibles again and again without concern for the heat involved. Because the outcome is worth it.
Here are four athletes who became high-performing physicians and how they did it.
The Gymnast/The Pediatric Surgeon
“Gymnastics helped me build a skill set for my career,” said Canadian Olympic gymnast-turned-pediatric orthopedic surgeon Lise Leveille, MD. “It led me to be successful as a medical student and ultimately obtain the job that I want in the area that I want working with the people that I want.”
The skills Dr. Leveille prizes include time management, teamwork, goal setting, and a strong work ethic, all of which propel an athlete to the crucial moment of “performance.”
“I miss performing,” said Dr. Leveille. “It defines who I was at that time. I miss being able to work toward something and then deliver when it counted” — like when she qualified for the 1998 Commonwealth games in Kuala Lumpur at 16.
The Canadian national team came third at that event, and Dr. Leveille built on that success at the Pan American Games, taking gold on the balance beam and as a team, and then qualifying for the Olympics at the 1999 World Championships. She competed in the team and five individual events at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.
Though Dr. Leveille started gymnastics at age 3, her parents, both teachers, instilled in her the importance of education. Gymnastics opened academic doors for her, like being recruited to Stanford where she completed her undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering and human biology in 2004 before entering medical school at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
Now 41, Dr. Leveille accepts that she’ll never nail another gymnastics routine, but she channels that love of sticking the landing into the operating room at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, also in Vancouver.
“Some of the unknown variables within the operating room and how you deal with those unknown variables is exactly like showing up for a competition,” Dr. Leveille said. “When I have one of those cases where I have to perform under pressure and everything comes together, that’s exactly like nailing your routine when it counts most.”
The Pole Vaulter/The Emergency Medicine Physician
Tunisian American pole vaulter Leila Ben-Youssef, MD, had what could be considered a disappointing showing at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. She collapsed from severe abdominal pain during the opening ceremony and had to be carried out. On the day of competition, she was still suffering. “I could barely run down the runway,” she recalled. “I cleared one bar. I was just happy to have been able to do that.”
When Dr. Ben-Youssef, who grew up in Montana, returned home, she underwent emergency surgery to remove the source of the pain: A large, benign tumor.
While some might be devastated by such bad luck, Dr. Ben-Youssef focuses on the success of her journey — the fact that she qualified and competed at the Olympics in the first place. The ability to accept setbacks is something she said comes with the territory.
“As an athlete, you’re always facing injury, and someone told me early in my career that the best athletes are the ones that know how to manage their expectations because it’s bound to happen,” she said. “So, there is disappointment. But recognizing that I did qualify for the Olympics despite being uncomfortable and having issues, I was still able to meet my goal.”
Prior to the games, Dr. Ben-Youssef had been accepted into medical school at the University of Washington School of Medicine at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Thankfully, the school was supportive of Dr. Ben-Youssef’s Olympic dreams and allowed her to begin her studies a month behind her class. Upon her return from Beijing, she spent the rest of her medical school training with her head down, grinding.
“Medicine is hard,” said Dr. Ben-Youssef. “It’s grueling both physically and emotionally, and I think that’s similar to any elite sport. You’re going to deal with challenges and disappointment. I think having gone through that as an athlete really prepares you for the medical education system, for residency, and even for day-to-day work.”
Now a physician working in emergency medicine in Hawaii, Dr. Ben-Youssef feels the setbacks she experienced as an athlete help her connect with her patients as they deal with health challenges.
And as a volunteer pole vaulting coach for a local high school, Dr. Ben-Youssef has been able to surround herself with the positive, joyful energy of athletes. “Emergency medicine is often a sad place,” she said. “But in a sports environment, if people don’t succeed or are injured, there is still that energy there that strives for something, and it’s so fun to be around.”
The Rower/The Sports Medicine Specialist
Three-time US Olympic rower Genevra “Gevvie” Stone, MD, wanted to be a doctor even before she gave a thought to rowing. She was in eighth grade when she dislocated her knee for the third time. Her parents took her to a pediatric orthopedist, and Dr. Stone, according to her mom, declared: “That’s what I want to do when I grow up.”
“I’m a very stubborn person, and when I make a decision like that, I usually don’t veer from it,” Dr. Stone said.
That laser focus combined with a deep love of both sports and medicine has served Dr. Stone well. “Becoming a doctor and becoming an Olympian require you to dedicate not just your time and your energy but also your passion to that focus,” she said. “In both, you aren’t going to be successful if you don’t love what you’re doing. Finding the reward in it is what makes it achievable.”
Dr. Stone actually resisted rowing until she was 16 because both of her parents were Olympians in the sport and met on the US team. “It was their thing, and I didn’t want it to be my thing,” she recalled.
Nonetheless, Dr. Stone easily fell into the sport in her late teens and was recruited by Princeton University. “I had grown up around Olympians and kind of took it for granted that if you worked hard enough and were decent at rowing, then you could be one of the best in the world, without really realizing how difficult it would be to achieve that,” she said.
Dr. Stone’s team won the NCAA Championship in 2006 and was invited to try out for the 2008 Olympic team at the US training center after she graduated from college. But she didn’t make it.
Instead, Dr. Stone entered medical school at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, thinking her competitive rowing career had come to end. But her love for the sport was still strong, and she realized she wasn’t finished.
After 2 years of medical school, Dr. Stone requested 2 years off so she might have another shot at making the Olympic team. The timing was right. She went to the London Olympics in 2012, graduated from medical school in 2014, and then took 2 more years off to train full time for the 2016 Olympics in Rio where she won silver.
At the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Dr. Stone took fifth place in the double sculls. While she continues to race the master’s circuit, she’s primarily dedicated to completing her sports medicine fellowship at University of Utah Health.
Fortunately, Dr. Stone’s parents, coaches, and teachers always supported her goals. “No one turned to me and told me I was crazy, just choose medicine or rowing,” she said. “Everyone said that if this is what you want to do, we’re here to support you, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without that support.”
The Volleyball Player/The Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Nnamani Silva’s journey to the Olympics was also paved with an extensive list of supporters, beginning with her parents. And she has taken that sense of collaboration, coordination, and teamwork into her medical career.
The daughter of Nigerian immigrants who came to the United States to escape civil war, Dr. Nnamani Silva said her parents embraced the American dream. “To see what they were able to do with hard work, dedication, and sacrifice, I had no choice but to work hard because I saw their example. And that love for and belief in America was so strong in my house growing up,” she said.
Dreams of practicing medicine came first. A severe asthmatic growing up, Dr. Nnamani Silva recalled having wonderful doctors. “I had so many emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” she said. “But the doctors always gave me hope, and they literally transformed my life. I thought if I could pass that on to my future patients, that would be the greatest honor of my life.”
Volleyball gave Dr. Nnamani Silva the opportunity to attend Stanford, and she took time off during her junior year to train and compete in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. She also played for the United States at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing where the team took silver. Afterward, she continued to play overseas for several years.
At 33, and with a newborn daughter, Dr. Nnamani Silva returned to her original goal of becoming a doctor. She attended the University of California, San Francisco, and is currently a resident in the Harvard Plastic Surgery Program. She includes her husband, parents, and in-laws in this achievement, whom she said “saved” her. “There is no chance I would have finished medical school and survived residency without them.”
As a volleyball player, Dr. Nnamani Silva said she “believes in teams wholeheartedly,” valuing the exchange of energy and skill that she feels brings out the best in people. As a medical student, she initially didn’t realize how her previous life would apply to teamwork in the operating room. But it soon became clear.
“In surgery, when you harness the talents of everyone around you and you create that synergy, it’s an amazing feeling,” she said. And the stakes are often high. “It requires a lot of focus, discipline, determination, and resilience because you’re going to be humbled all the time.” Something athletes know a little bit about.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Your odds are 1 in 562,400.
Or, as Bill Mallon, the past president and cofounder of the International Society of Olympic Historians, has said, aspiring athletes have a 0.00000178% chance of making the Games.
Now imagine the odds of making the Olympics and then going on to become a physician. And maybe it’s not surprising that those who have done it credit the training they received as Olympic athletes as key to their success in medicine.
“Dealing with poor outcomes and having to get back up and try again,” said Olympian-turned-physician Ogonna Nnamani Silva, MD, “that reiterative process of trying to obtain perfection in your craft — that’s athletics 101.”
This connection isn’t just anecdotal. It has been discussed in medical journals and examined in surveys. The consensus is that, yes, there are specific characteristics elite athletes develop that physicians — regardless of their athletic background — can learn to apply to their work in medicine.
Maybe it’s something else, too: Certain mindsets don’t worry about long odds. They seek out crucibles again and again without concern for the heat involved. Because the outcome is worth it.
Here are four athletes who became high-performing physicians and how they did it.
The Gymnast/The Pediatric Surgeon
“Gymnastics helped me build a skill set for my career,” said Canadian Olympic gymnast-turned-pediatric orthopedic surgeon Lise Leveille, MD. “It led me to be successful as a medical student and ultimately obtain the job that I want in the area that I want working with the people that I want.”
The skills Dr. Leveille prizes include time management, teamwork, goal setting, and a strong work ethic, all of which propel an athlete to the crucial moment of “performance.”
“I miss performing,” said Dr. Leveille. “It defines who I was at that time. I miss being able to work toward something and then deliver when it counted” — like when she qualified for the 1998 Commonwealth games in Kuala Lumpur at 16.
The Canadian national team came third at that event, and Dr. Leveille built on that success at the Pan American Games, taking gold on the balance beam and as a team, and then qualifying for the Olympics at the 1999 World Championships. She competed in the team and five individual events at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney.
Though Dr. Leveille started gymnastics at age 3, her parents, both teachers, instilled in her the importance of education. Gymnastics opened academic doors for her, like being recruited to Stanford where she completed her undergraduate degree in biomedical engineering and human biology in 2004 before entering medical school at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
Now 41, Dr. Leveille accepts that she’ll never nail another gymnastics routine, but she channels that love of sticking the landing into the operating room at British Columbia Children’s Hospital, also in Vancouver.
“Some of the unknown variables within the operating room and how you deal with those unknown variables is exactly like showing up for a competition,” Dr. Leveille said. “When I have one of those cases where I have to perform under pressure and everything comes together, that’s exactly like nailing your routine when it counts most.”
The Pole Vaulter/The Emergency Medicine Physician
Tunisian American pole vaulter Leila Ben-Youssef, MD, had what could be considered a disappointing showing at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. She collapsed from severe abdominal pain during the opening ceremony and had to be carried out. On the day of competition, she was still suffering. “I could barely run down the runway,” she recalled. “I cleared one bar. I was just happy to have been able to do that.”
When Dr. Ben-Youssef, who grew up in Montana, returned home, she underwent emergency surgery to remove the source of the pain: A large, benign tumor.
While some might be devastated by such bad luck, Dr. Ben-Youssef focuses on the success of her journey — the fact that she qualified and competed at the Olympics in the first place. The ability to accept setbacks is something she said comes with the territory.
“As an athlete, you’re always facing injury, and someone told me early in my career that the best athletes are the ones that know how to manage their expectations because it’s bound to happen,” she said. “So, there is disappointment. But recognizing that I did qualify for the Olympics despite being uncomfortable and having issues, I was still able to meet my goal.”
Prior to the games, Dr. Ben-Youssef had been accepted into medical school at the University of Washington School of Medicine at Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana. Thankfully, the school was supportive of Dr. Ben-Youssef’s Olympic dreams and allowed her to begin her studies a month behind her class. Upon her return from Beijing, she spent the rest of her medical school training with her head down, grinding.
“Medicine is hard,” said Dr. Ben-Youssef. “It’s grueling both physically and emotionally, and I think that’s similar to any elite sport. You’re going to deal with challenges and disappointment. I think having gone through that as an athlete really prepares you for the medical education system, for residency, and even for day-to-day work.”
Now a physician working in emergency medicine in Hawaii, Dr. Ben-Youssef feels the setbacks she experienced as an athlete help her connect with her patients as they deal with health challenges.
And as a volunteer pole vaulting coach for a local high school, Dr. Ben-Youssef has been able to surround herself with the positive, joyful energy of athletes. “Emergency medicine is often a sad place,” she said. “But in a sports environment, if people don’t succeed or are injured, there is still that energy there that strives for something, and it’s so fun to be around.”
The Rower/The Sports Medicine Specialist
Three-time US Olympic rower Genevra “Gevvie” Stone, MD, wanted to be a doctor even before she gave a thought to rowing. She was in eighth grade when she dislocated her knee for the third time. Her parents took her to a pediatric orthopedist, and Dr. Stone, according to her mom, declared: “That’s what I want to do when I grow up.”
“I’m a very stubborn person, and when I make a decision like that, I usually don’t veer from it,” Dr. Stone said.
That laser focus combined with a deep love of both sports and medicine has served Dr. Stone well. “Becoming a doctor and becoming an Olympian require you to dedicate not just your time and your energy but also your passion to that focus,” she said. “In both, you aren’t going to be successful if you don’t love what you’re doing. Finding the reward in it is what makes it achievable.”
Dr. Stone actually resisted rowing until she was 16 because both of her parents were Olympians in the sport and met on the US team. “It was their thing, and I didn’t want it to be my thing,” she recalled.
Nonetheless, Dr. Stone easily fell into the sport in her late teens and was recruited by Princeton University. “I had grown up around Olympians and kind of took it for granted that if you worked hard enough and were decent at rowing, then you could be one of the best in the world, without really realizing how difficult it would be to achieve that,” she said.
Dr. Stone’s team won the NCAA Championship in 2006 and was invited to try out for the 2008 Olympic team at the US training center after she graduated from college. But she didn’t make it.
Instead, Dr. Stone entered medical school at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, thinking her competitive rowing career had come to end. But her love for the sport was still strong, and she realized she wasn’t finished.
After 2 years of medical school, Dr. Stone requested 2 years off so she might have another shot at making the Olympic team. The timing was right. She went to the London Olympics in 2012, graduated from medical school in 2014, and then took 2 more years off to train full time for the 2016 Olympics in Rio where she won silver.
At the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Dr. Stone took fifth place in the double sculls. While she continues to race the master’s circuit, she’s primarily dedicated to completing her sports medicine fellowship at University of Utah Health.
Fortunately, Dr. Stone’s parents, coaches, and teachers always supported her goals. “No one turned to me and told me I was crazy, just choose medicine or rowing,” she said. “Everyone said that if this is what you want to do, we’re here to support you, and I wouldn’t have been able to do it without that support.”
The Volleyball Player/The Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Nnamani Silva’s journey to the Olympics was also paved with an extensive list of supporters, beginning with her parents. And she has taken that sense of collaboration, coordination, and teamwork into her medical career.
The daughter of Nigerian immigrants who came to the United States to escape civil war, Dr. Nnamani Silva said her parents embraced the American dream. “To see what they were able to do with hard work, dedication, and sacrifice, I had no choice but to work hard because I saw their example. And that love for and belief in America was so strong in my house growing up,” she said.
Dreams of practicing medicine came first. A severe asthmatic growing up, Dr. Nnamani Silva recalled having wonderful doctors. “I had so many emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” she said. “But the doctors always gave me hope, and they literally transformed my life. I thought if I could pass that on to my future patients, that would be the greatest honor of my life.”
Volleyball gave Dr. Nnamani Silva the opportunity to attend Stanford, and she took time off during her junior year to train and compete in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. She also played for the United States at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing where the team took silver. Afterward, she continued to play overseas for several years.
At 33, and with a newborn daughter, Dr. Nnamani Silva returned to her original goal of becoming a doctor. She attended the University of California, San Francisco, and is currently a resident in the Harvard Plastic Surgery Program. She includes her husband, parents, and in-laws in this achievement, whom she said “saved” her. “There is no chance I would have finished medical school and survived residency without them.”
As a volleyball player, Dr. Nnamani Silva said she “believes in teams wholeheartedly,” valuing the exchange of energy and skill that she feels brings out the best in people. As a medical student, she initially didn’t realize how her previous life would apply to teamwork in the operating room. But it soon became clear.
“In surgery, when you harness the talents of everyone around you and you create that synergy, it’s an amazing feeling,” she said. And the stakes are often high. “It requires a lot of focus, discipline, determination, and resilience because you’re going to be humbled all the time.” Something athletes know a little bit about.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Healthcare Workers Face Gender-Based Violence
Across the world, healthcare workers experience workplace violence, which can differ by gender, seniority, and the type of workplace, according to a recent study.
An analysis found that men were more likely to report physical violence, while women were more likely to face nonphysical violence, such as verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying.
“Our study was sparked by the increasing research on workplace violence in healthcare settings. Yet, there’s less empirical data about workplace violence based on gender, its effects on individuals and the collective workforce, and its subsequent impact on patient care and healthcare organizations,” study author Basnama Ayaz, a PhD candidate in nursing at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“Workplace violence in healthcare settings is a critical issue that requires attention and action from all stakeholders, including individual providers, healthcare and other institutions, policymakers, and the community,” she said. “By recognizing the problem and implementing evidence-based solutions, we can create safer work environments that protect healthcare workers and improve quality care for patients and organizational effectiveness.”
The study was published online in PLOS Global Public Health.
Widespread and Severe
Although women represent most of the healthcare workforce worldwide, hierarchical structures tend to reflect traditional gender norms, where men hold leadership positions and women serve in front-line care roles, said Ms. Ayaz. Women are often marginalized, and their concerns dismissed, which can exacerbate their vulnerability to gender-based workplace violence, she added.
To better understand these imbalances on a global scale, the investigators conducted a scoping review of the prevalence of and risk factors for gender-based workplace violence in healthcare settings. Participants included physicians, nurses, and midwives, between 2010 and 2024. Although the authors acknowledged that gender-based workplace violence affects the full gender spectrum, only a handful of studies included information about nonbinary personnel, so the review focused on men and women.
Among 226 studies, half focused on physicians, 22% focused on nurses, and 28% included physicians, nurses, midwives, and other medical workers. About 64% of studies reported a higher prevalence of all forms of workplace violence for women, including sexual violence, verbal abuse, discrimination, bullying, and physical violence, while 17% reported a higher prevalence for men.
Overall, across most countries, men experienced more physical violence than did women, and women experienced more verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying. Female nurses were particularly likely to experience violence.
Healthcare workers were also more likely to experience violence if they were younger, less experienced, had a lower professional status, or were part of a minority group based on ethnicity, nationality, culture, or language. These factors were sensitive to gender, “reflecting women’s structural disadvantages in the workplace,” wrote the authors.
As a result of workplace violence, women were more likely to report changes in mental health and social behaviors, as well as dissatisfaction, burnout, and changes in their career goals.
The research team identified various factors linked to violent episodes. In clinical settings where most perpetrators were patients and their relatives, abuse and violence could be related to overcrowding, waiting time, and heavy workloads for healthcare providers. When supervisors or colleagues were the perpetrators, workplace violence appeared to be more likely with long hours, night shifts, and certain clinical settings, such as emergency departments, psychiatric settings, operating rooms, and maternity wards, said Ms. Ayaz. Sexual or gender harassment toward women was more prevalent in male-dominated surgical specialties.
“We were surprised by the extent and severity of workplace violence that healthcare workers face around the globe based on gender,” she said. “One aspect that stood out was the significant role that organizational culture and support systems play either in mitigating or exacerbating these incidents, particularly the power structures between and within professions.”
For instance, trainees in lower hierarchical positions often face a higher risk for violence, especially gender-based harassment, she said. Many times, they feel they can’t report these incidents to trainers or managers, who may also be the perpetrators, she added.
Addressing Systemic Issues
In 2002, the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and other major medical and labor groups worldwide launched a program focused on ways to eliminate workplace violence in healthcare settings. Since 2020, the call for a solution has grown louder as clinicians, nurses, and other health professionals faced more physical and verbal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, often leading to burnout.
“Workplace violence is very important because it is more prevalent in healthcare workers than in many other settings and is on the rise,” said Karen Abrams, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. Dr. Abrams, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched physicians’ experiences of stalking by patients.
Workplace violence “can affect physical and mental health and lead to burnout, depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD,” said Dr. Abrams. “It can affect one’s sleep and concentration and, therefore, ability to perform one’s job.”
Dr. Ayaz and colleagues suggested recommendations to improve gender-based workplace violence, noting the complex and multifaceted aspects of enhancing current policies, fortifying institutional capacities to respond, and implementing tailored interventions. Changes are needed at various levels, including at the healthcare system and provincial, territorial, and national levels, she said.
In Canada, for instance, lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 that amended the national criminal code to make intimidation or bullying a healthcare worker punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. The changes also required courts to consider more serious penalties for offenders who target healthcare workers aggressively.
But more needs to be done, medical professional groups say. The Canadian Nurses Association and Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, as well as provincial groups, have called for a pan-Canadian violence-prevention framework, targeted funding for violence prevention infrastructure, and an update to the nation’s health human resources strategy to address severe staffing shortages across the country.
“Canada needs a bold vision for the future of our healthcare. Amid an ongoing staffing crisis, the cracks in our public healthcare systems have only grown deeper and wider, with too many going without the care they need when they need it,” Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, told this news organization.
“Access to care relies on safe staffing. Years of unsafe working conditions and insufficient staffing are pushing nurses out of our public healthcare system,” she said. “Working collaboratively, we can make healthcare jobs the best jobs in our communities.”
The authors received no specific funding for the study. Ms. Ayaz, Dr. Abrams, and Ms. Silas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Across the world, healthcare workers experience workplace violence, which can differ by gender, seniority, and the type of workplace, according to a recent study.
An analysis found that men were more likely to report physical violence, while women were more likely to face nonphysical violence, such as verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying.
“Our study was sparked by the increasing research on workplace violence in healthcare settings. Yet, there’s less empirical data about workplace violence based on gender, its effects on individuals and the collective workforce, and its subsequent impact on patient care and healthcare organizations,” study author Basnama Ayaz, a PhD candidate in nursing at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“Workplace violence in healthcare settings is a critical issue that requires attention and action from all stakeholders, including individual providers, healthcare and other institutions, policymakers, and the community,” she said. “By recognizing the problem and implementing evidence-based solutions, we can create safer work environments that protect healthcare workers and improve quality care for patients and organizational effectiveness.”
The study was published online in PLOS Global Public Health.
Widespread and Severe
Although women represent most of the healthcare workforce worldwide, hierarchical structures tend to reflect traditional gender norms, where men hold leadership positions and women serve in front-line care roles, said Ms. Ayaz. Women are often marginalized, and their concerns dismissed, which can exacerbate their vulnerability to gender-based workplace violence, she added.
To better understand these imbalances on a global scale, the investigators conducted a scoping review of the prevalence of and risk factors for gender-based workplace violence in healthcare settings. Participants included physicians, nurses, and midwives, between 2010 and 2024. Although the authors acknowledged that gender-based workplace violence affects the full gender spectrum, only a handful of studies included information about nonbinary personnel, so the review focused on men and women.
Among 226 studies, half focused on physicians, 22% focused on nurses, and 28% included physicians, nurses, midwives, and other medical workers. About 64% of studies reported a higher prevalence of all forms of workplace violence for women, including sexual violence, verbal abuse, discrimination, bullying, and physical violence, while 17% reported a higher prevalence for men.
Overall, across most countries, men experienced more physical violence than did women, and women experienced more verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying. Female nurses were particularly likely to experience violence.
Healthcare workers were also more likely to experience violence if they were younger, less experienced, had a lower professional status, or were part of a minority group based on ethnicity, nationality, culture, or language. These factors were sensitive to gender, “reflecting women’s structural disadvantages in the workplace,” wrote the authors.
As a result of workplace violence, women were more likely to report changes in mental health and social behaviors, as well as dissatisfaction, burnout, and changes in their career goals.
The research team identified various factors linked to violent episodes. In clinical settings where most perpetrators were patients and their relatives, abuse and violence could be related to overcrowding, waiting time, and heavy workloads for healthcare providers. When supervisors or colleagues were the perpetrators, workplace violence appeared to be more likely with long hours, night shifts, and certain clinical settings, such as emergency departments, psychiatric settings, operating rooms, and maternity wards, said Ms. Ayaz. Sexual or gender harassment toward women was more prevalent in male-dominated surgical specialties.
“We were surprised by the extent and severity of workplace violence that healthcare workers face around the globe based on gender,” she said. “One aspect that stood out was the significant role that organizational culture and support systems play either in mitigating or exacerbating these incidents, particularly the power structures between and within professions.”
For instance, trainees in lower hierarchical positions often face a higher risk for violence, especially gender-based harassment, she said. Many times, they feel they can’t report these incidents to trainers or managers, who may also be the perpetrators, she added.
Addressing Systemic Issues
In 2002, the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and other major medical and labor groups worldwide launched a program focused on ways to eliminate workplace violence in healthcare settings. Since 2020, the call for a solution has grown louder as clinicians, nurses, and other health professionals faced more physical and verbal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, often leading to burnout.
“Workplace violence is very important because it is more prevalent in healthcare workers than in many other settings and is on the rise,” said Karen Abrams, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. Dr. Abrams, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched physicians’ experiences of stalking by patients.
Workplace violence “can affect physical and mental health and lead to burnout, depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD,” said Dr. Abrams. “It can affect one’s sleep and concentration and, therefore, ability to perform one’s job.”
Dr. Ayaz and colleagues suggested recommendations to improve gender-based workplace violence, noting the complex and multifaceted aspects of enhancing current policies, fortifying institutional capacities to respond, and implementing tailored interventions. Changes are needed at various levels, including at the healthcare system and provincial, territorial, and national levels, she said.
In Canada, for instance, lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 that amended the national criminal code to make intimidation or bullying a healthcare worker punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. The changes also required courts to consider more serious penalties for offenders who target healthcare workers aggressively.
But more needs to be done, medical professional groups say. The Canadian Nurses Association and Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, as well as provincial groups, have called for a pan-Canadian violence-prevention framework, targeted funding for violence prevention infrastructure, and an update to the nation’s health human resources strategy to address severe staffing shortages across the country.
“Canada needs a bold vision for the future of our healthcare. Amid an ongoing staffing crisis, the cracks in our public healthcare systems have only grown deeper and wider, with too many going without the care they need when they need it,” Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, told this news organization.
“Access to care relies on safe staffing. Years of unsafe working conditions and insufficient staffing are pushing nurses out of our public healthcare system,” she said. “Working collaboratively, we can make healthcare jobs the best jobs in our communities.”
The authors received no specific funding for the study. Ms. Ayaz, Dr. Abrams, and Ms. Silas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Across the world, healthcare workers experience workplace violence, which can differ by gender, seniority, and the type of workplace, according to a recent study.
An analysis found that men were more likely to report physical violence, while women were more likely to face nonphysical violence, such as verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying.
“Our study was sparked by the increasing research on workplace violence in healthcare settings. Yet, there’s less empirical data about workplace violence based on gender, its effects on individuals and the collective workforce, and its subsequent impact on patient care and healthcare organizations,” study author Basnama Ayaz, a PhD candidate in nursing at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“Workplace violence in healthcare settings is a critical issue that requires attention and action from all stakeholders, including individual providers, healthcare and other institutions, policymakers, and the community,” she said. “By recognizing the problem and implementing evidence-based solutions, we can create safer work environments that protect healthcare workers and improve quality care for patients and organizational effectiveness.”
The study was published online in PLOS Global Public Health.
Widespread and Severe
Although women represent most of the healthcare workforce worldwide, hierarchical structures tend to reflect traditional gender norms, where men hold leadership positions and women serve in front-line care roles, said Ms. Ayaz. Women are often marginalized, and their concerns dismissed, which can exacerbate their vulnerability to gender-based workplace violence, she added.
To better understand these imbalances on a global scale, the investigators conducted a scoping review of the prevalence of and risk factors for gender-based workplace violence in healthcare settings. Participants included physicians, nurses, and midwives, between 2010 and 2024. Although the authors acknowledged that gender-based workplace violence affects the full gender spectrum, only a handful of studies included information about nonbinary personnel, so the review focused on men and women.
Among 226 studies, half focused on physicians, 22% focused on nurses, and 28% included physicians, nurses, midwives, and other medical workers. About 64% of studies reported a higher prevalence of all forms of workplace violence for women, including sexual violence, verbal abuse, discrimination, bullying, and physical violence, while 17% reported a higher prevalence for men.
Overall, across most countries, men experienced more physical violence than did women, and women experienced more verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and bullying. Female nurses were particularly likely to experience violence.
Healthcare workers were also more likely to experience violence if they were younger, less experienced, had a lower professional status, or were part of a minority group based on ethnicity, nationality, culture, or language. These factors were sensitive to gender, “reflecting women’s structural disadvantages in the workplace,” wrote the authors.
As a result of workplace violence, women were more likely to report changes in mental health and social behaviors, as well as dissatisfaction, burnout, and changes in their career goals.
The research team identified various factors linked to violent episodes. In clinical settings where most perpetrators were patients and their relatives, abuse and violence could be related to overcrowding, waiting time, and heavy workloads for healthcare providers. When supervisors or colleagues were the perpetrators, workplace violence appeared to be more likely with long hours, night shifts, and certain clinical settings, such as emergency departments, psychiatric settings, operating rooms, and maternity wards, said Ms. Ayaz. Sexual or gender harassment toward women was more prevalent in male-dominated surgical specialties.
“We were surprised by the extent and severity of workplace violence that healthcare workers face around the globe based on gender,” she said. “One aspect that stood out was the significant role that organizational culture and support systems play either in mitigating or exacerbating these incidents, particularly the power structures between and within professions.”
For instance, trainees in lower hierarchical positions often face a higher risk for violence, especially gender-based harassment, she said. Many times, they feel they can’t report these incidents to trainers or managers, who may also be the perpetrators, she added.
Addressing Systemic Issues
In 2002, the World Health Organization, International Council of Nurses, and other major medical and labor groups worldwide launched a program focused on ways to eliminate workplace violence in healthcare settings. Since 2020, the call for a solution has grown louder as clinicians, nurses, and other health professionals faced more physical and verbal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, often leading to burnout.
“Workplace violence is very important because it is more prevalent in healthcare workers than in many other settings and is on the rise,” said Karen Abrams, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. Dr. Abrams, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched physicians’ experiences of stalking by patients.
Workplace violence “can affect physical and mental health and lead to burnout, depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD,” said Dr. Abrams. “It can affect one’s sleep and concentration and, therefore, ability to perform one’s job.”
Dr. Ayaz and colleagues suggested recommendations to improve gender-based workplace violence, noting the complex and multifaceted aspects of enhancing current policies, fortifying institutional capacities to respond, and implementing tailored interventions. Changes are needed at various levels, including at the healthcare system and provincial, territorial, and national levels, she said.
In Canada, for instance, lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 that amended the national criminal code to make intimidation or bullying a healthcare worker punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. The changes also required courts to consider more serious penalties for offenders who target healthcare workers aggressively.
But more needs to be done, medical professional groups say. The Canadian Nurses Association and Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, as well as provincial groups, have called for a pan-Canadian violence-prevention framework, targeted funding for violence prevention infrastructure, and an update to the nation’s health human resources strategy to address severe staffing shortages across the country.
“Canada needs a bold vision for the future of our healthcare. Amid an ongoing staffing crisis, the cracks in our public healthcare systems have only grown deeper and wider, with too many going without the care they need when they need it,” Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, told this news organization.
“Access to care relies on safe staffing. Years of unsafe working conditions and insufficient staffing are pushing nurses out of our public healthcare system,” she said. “Working collaboratively, we can make healthcare jobs the best jobs in our communities.”
The authors received no specific funding for the study. Ms. Ayaz, Dr. Abrams, and Ms. Silas reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary Care Internal Medicine Is Dead
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original.
Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead.
The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all.
From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.
How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story.
I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career.
To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me.
It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student.
In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me.
Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts.
When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program.
In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality.
“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for.
What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story.
When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center.
We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes.
One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8.
Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m.
What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems.
What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine?
At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro.
Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone.
Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself.
Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide.
Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine?
Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field.
Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well.
Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients!
Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.
Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original.
Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead.
The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all.
From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.
How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story.
I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career.
To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me.
It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student.
In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me.
Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts.
When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program.
In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality.
“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for.
What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story.
When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center.
We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes.
One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8.
Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m.
What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems.
What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine?
At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro.
Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone.
Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself.
Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide.
Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine?
Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field.
Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well.
Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients!
Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.
Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original.
Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead.
The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all.
From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.
How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story.
I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career.
To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me.
It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student.
In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me.
Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts.
When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program.
In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality.
“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for.
What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story.
When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center.
We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes.
One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8.
Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m.
What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems.
What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine?
At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro.
Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone.
Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself.
Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide.
Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine?
Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field.
Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well.
Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients!
Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.
Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Revamping Resident Schedules to Reduce Burnout
It’s the difference between running a marathon and taking a leisurely stroll. That’s how recent pediatrics resident Joey Whelihan, MD, compared an 11-hour inpatient hospital day with an 8-hour outpatient shift where residents see patients in a clinic.
With inpatient training, “you are lucky if you have time to cook dinner, go to bed, and get ready for the next day,” said Dr. Whelihan, who recently started his adolescent medicine fellowship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia after 3 years of residency there. Some residents have call every fourth day during inpatient rotations, working 24-28 hours at a time. They come in one morning and go home the next, he told this news organization.
“Outpatient blocks give you more time to catch your breath and feel somewhat refreshed and ready to take care of patients.”
Longer stretches of inpatient rotations are not sustainable, Dr. Whelihan added, and residents are likely to become exhausted. Fatigue is a leading cause of burnout, a mental, physical, and emotional challenge that residency programs and national medical organizations have been struggling to address.
In recent years, there has been a movement to reduce the maximum consecutive duration of resident duty hours in residency programs across the country. Fueled by resident health and patient safety concerns, the movement is a shift from the previous 24- to 36-hour call duty schedules.
Improved Call Systems = Better Residents
The connection between burnout, well-being, and work schedules appears regularly in national program standards. “Residents and faculty members are at risk for burnout and depression,” according to the current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s standard residency program requirements.
“Programs, in partnership with their sponsoring institutions, have the same responsibility to address well-being as other aspects of resident competence,” the guidelines state. That charge includes “attention to scheduling, work intensity, and work compression that impacts resident well-being.”
In Medscape’s Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023, a third of residents surveyed rarely or never paid attention to their well-being, which closely mirrors the 31% who rarely or never had time for a social life. Slightly more residents (37%) said their work-life balance was “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than they expected.
“I think everyone has burnout as a resident, regardless of the type of program they are in,” Dr. Whelihan said. He described the experience as when you lack fulfillment and empathy and feel exhausted, callous, and removed from interactions with colleagues and patients.
The American Medical Association’s recently released report on the state of residency well-being in 2023 also found that about 43% of residents and fellows had at least one symptom of burnout, about a 2% increase from 2022.
Efforts to Combat Burnout
One residency program found a way to reduce burnout by changing its block scheduling from 4 inpatient weeks followed by 1 outpatient week (4 + 1) to 4 inpatient call-based weeks and 4 outpatient ambulatory, non-call weeks (4 + 4), according to a survey study published recently in JAMA Network Open. The initiative drew praise from some residents and a med school professor who studies wellness issues.
In the survey of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 and PGY-2 hospitalist and primary care residents from the University of Colorado’s Internal Medicine Residency Program, Aurora, between June 2019 and June 2021, the schedule change resulted in improved burnout scores and self-reported professional, educational, and health benefits.
As part of the survey, residents rated symptoms on a 7-point scale on the basis of how frequently they experienced emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.
Investigators also used a questionnaire to evaluate how participants perceived the rotation structure with various outcomes, including the ability to acquire clinical skills, access educational and scholarly opportunities, job satisfaction, and health.
The study concluded that the schedule change improved burnout, health, wellness, and professional development without weakening residents perceived clinical skills or standardized exam scores.
Still, the study authors acknowledged that several factors, including the pandemic, may have limited the findings. During that time, the study transitioned from in-person to electronic submissions, resulting in reduced response rates because of changes in staffing needs and fewer research and scholarly activities.
“One of the things we worried about was that the pandemic would make [burnout findings] look worse,” said lead author Dan Heppe, MD, a hospitalist and associate director of the CU Internal Medicine Residency Program. “Anecdotally, residents may have had more support in our program than perhaps some other programs. Though they had long hours with very sick patients, we tried to keep going in a positive direction.”
Dr. Heppe said in an interview that the purpose of the schedule change was to space out more intense rotations and build in more time for research, leadership, teaching, and professional development. He suggested the new schedule could help with other aspects of residents’ careers, exposing them to alternate avenues earlier in their training and in a more structured way.
Like most of the study authors, Dr. Heppe is a graduate of the residency program. He recalled how the program changed from multiple inpatient months in a row with clinic half days during those rotations to a 4 + 1 schedule. But the 1 week between inpatient rotations wasn’t enough time to recover or catch up on clinical work, said Dr. Heppe, who is also an associate professor of medicine at CU.
“It was too erratic,” he said of his former residency schedule. “There was a month of research here or there and clinic and then right back to the ICU for a couple of months without a break, and it was less predictable.”
Dr. Heppe said other residency programs have expressed interest in duplicating CU’s schedule change. He admits it may be difficult because of intensive schedule coordination, and some hospitals may not want to reduce clinical services.
The Yale Internal Medicine Traditional Residency Program also recently ended its 28-hour call, during which residents worked 24 hours with an additional 4 hours to transfer the patient to the incoming team. The move was made in response to residents’ requests, saying that the grueling call rotation’s time had come. The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.
Proponents of alternate scheduling blocks [4 + 4 or 6 + 2] say that they improve residents’ educational experience, patient care, and continuity of care, reduce burnout, and guarantee residents time off.
Advancing Resident Well-Being
“The premise of looking at scheduling in a more intentional way is a sound one in the process of trying to support and advance resident well-being,” said Mark Greenawald, MD, vice chair of academic affairs, well-being, and professional development for the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine’s Department of Family and Community Medicine in Roanoke.
He said it’s up to residency program directors or graduate medical education departments within a specialty to determine whether such scheduling changes fit their requirements for inpatient and outpatient care and training electives. Requirements may limit some scheduling changes, but within the specialty, there’s some flexibility to be creative with rotations. The CU study considered how to create a residency rhythm without stacking inpatient rotations so there’s recovery time.
“Human beings need a break. If residents work 80 hours continually, they will start to experience greater distress, which for many leads to burnout,” he said
Still, the study includes design flaws because it doesn’t explain how call times and hours differ between inpatient and outpatient rotations. “My own [family medicine] program also does outpatient clinics when we have inpatient service. We have half days in the clinic, which ensures better continuity care with the patient.”
Dr. Greenawald has yet to see much research published about the impact of resident schedule changes. By taking an experimental approach, the CU study showed that their particular change positively affected burnout. If the study leads to improvements in rotation schedules or encourages other programs to experiment with their schedules, it will be a step in the right direction.
How Residents Respond
Haidn Foster, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, remembered experiencing burnout as an intern. At that time, he occasionally dealt with poor patient outcomes and sick patients while working long hours with only 1 day off each week. During a particularly challenging rotation, he felt overwhelmed and numb, which was exacerbated if a patient’s condition worsened or they passed away, he said.
His program follows a schedule of 6 weeks of inpatient training and 2 weeks of outpatient rotations (6 + 2). He said that restructuring residents’ schedules may be more effective than commonly used individual wellness modules, referring to the CU study. “The authors tried out a novel systematic way to tackle the epidemic of physician burnout overwhelming people in the medical community.”
Although the study found that schedule changes don’t affect standardized exam scores, Dr. Foster wondered about preceptor ratings, another marker for clinical competency.
He said future studies should attempt to change the structure of medical training delivery by evaluating models that best reduce burnout, are consistent with residents’ career goals, and produce competent physicians. “Burnout plagues our medical system and leads to too many physicians and physicians-in-training leaving the field or taking their lives. I’m not sure this particular mechanism gets us there, but it’s a step, and so that’s very important.”
Like Dr. Foster, Dr. Whelihan follows a 6 + 2 schedule. He said he would have welcomed a schedule that included more outpatient and less inpatient training and can see how changes in scheduling could reduce burnout. “More outpatient time gives you an opportunity to breathe. You get a little more time off working in clinic with less sick people at a slower pace.”
Ally Fuher, MD, said she chose CU’s Internal Medicine Residency Program 4 years ago largely because of its innovative schedule. Now the program’s chief medical resident, she knew the structure would give her more time to pursue other nonclinical interests including research and medical education, meet regularly with mentors, visit family in another state, and attend important life events.
She acknowledged that the alternative would have meant a more irregular schedule with the possibility of working as many as 80 hours a week on back-to-back inpatient rotations with only 1 day off a week, leaving minimal time to plan other activities, let alone rest and recover.
Dr. Fuher said a balanced schedule made her a more well-rounded person excited to engage in her profession. While she hasn’t personally experienced burnout, she realizes a schedule change may not completely solve the issue for others. However, it shows what progress programs can make when they create systemic structural change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s the difference between running a marathon and taking a leisurely stroll. That’s how recent pediatrics resident Joey Whelihan, MD, compared an 11-hour inpatient hospital day with an 8-hour outpatient shift where residents see patients in a clinic.
With inpatient training, “you are lucky if you have time to cook dinner, go to bed, and get ready for the next day,” said Dr. Whelihan, who recently started his adolescent medicine fellowship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia after 3 years of residency there. Some residents have call every fourth day during inpatient rotations, working 24-28 hours at a time. They come in one morning and go home the next, he told this news organization.
“Outpatient blocks give you more time to catch your breath and feel somewhat refreshed and ready to take care of patients.”
Longer stretches of inpatient rotations are not sustainable, Dr. Whelihan added, and residents are likely to become exhausted. Fatigue is a leading cause of burnout, a mental, physical, and emotional challenge that residency programs and national medical organizations have been struggling to address.
In recent years, there has been a movement to reduce the maximum consecutive duration of resident duty hours in residency programs across the country. Fueled by resident health and patient safety concerns, the movement is a shift from the previous 24- to 36-hour call duty schedules.
Improved Call Systems = Better Residents
The connection between burnout, well-being, and work schedules appears regularly in national program standards. “Residents and faculty members are at risk for burnout and depression,” according to the current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s standard residency program requirements.
“Programs, in partnership with their sponsoring institutions, have the same responsibility to address well-being as other aspects of resident competence,” the guidelines state. That charge includes “attention to scheduling, work intensity, and work compression that impacts resident well-being.”
In Medscape’s Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023, a third of residents surveyed rarely or never paid attention to their well-being, which closely mirrors the 31% who rarely or never had time for a social life. Slightly more residents (37%) said their work-life balance was “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than they expected.
“I think everyone has burnout as a resident, regardless of the type of program they are in,” Dr. Whelihan said. He described the experience as when you lack fulfillment and empathy and feel exhausted, callous, and removed from interactions with colleagues and patients.
The American Medical Association’s recently released report on the state of residency well-being in 2023 also found that about 43% of residents and fellows had at least one symptom of burnout, about a 2% increase from 2022.
Efforts to Combat Burnout
One residency program found a way to reduce burnout by changing its block scheduling from 4 inpatient weeks followed by 1 outpatient week (4 + 1) to 4 inpatient call-based weeks and 4 outpatient ambulatory, non-call weeks (4 + 4), according to a survey study published recently in JAMA Network Open. The initiative drew praise from some residents and a med school professor who studies wellness issues.
In the survey of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 and PGY-2 hospitalist and primary care residents from the University of Colorado’s Internal Medicine Residency Program, Aurora, between June 2019 and June 2021, the schedule change resulted in improved burnout scores and self-reported professional, educational, and health benefits.
As part of the survey, residents rated symptoms on a 7-point scale on the basis of how frequently they experienced emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.
Investigators also used a questionnaire to evaluate how participants perceived the rotation structure with various outcomes, including the ability to acquire clinical skills, access educational and scholarly opportunities, job satisfaction, and health.
The study concluded that the schedule change improved burnout, health, wellness, and professional development without weakening residents perceived clinical skills or standardized exam scores.
Still, the study authors acknowledged that several factors, including the pandemic, may have limited the findings. During that time, the study transitioned from in-person to electronic submissions, resulting in reduced response rates because of changes in staffing needs and fewer research and scholarly activities.
“One of the things we worried about was that the pandemic would make [burnout findings] look worse,” said lead author Dan Heppe, MD, a hospitalist and associate director of the CU Internal Medicine Residency Program. “Anecdotally, residents may have had more support in our program than perhaps some other programs. Though they had long hours with very sick patients, we tried to keep going in a positive direction.”
Dr. Heppe said in an interview that the purpose of the schedule change was to space out more intense rotations and build in more time for research, leadership, teaching, and professional development. He suggested the new schedule could help with other aspects of residents’ careers, exposing them to alternate avenues earlier in their training and in a more structured way.
Like most of the study authors, Dr. Heppe is a graduate of the residency program. He recalled how the program changed from multiple inpatient months in a row with clinic half days during those rotations to a 4 + 1 schedule. But the 1 week between inpatient rotations wasn’t enough time to recover or catch up on clinical work, said Dr. Heppe, who is also an associate professor of medicine at CU.
“It was too erratic,” he said of his former residency schedule. “There was a month of research here or there and clinic and then right back to the ICU for a couple of months without a break, and it was less predictable.”
Dr. Heppe said other residency programs have expressed interest in duplicating CU’s schedule change. He admits it may be difficult because of intensive schedule coordination, and some hospitals may not want to reduce clinical services.
The Yale Internal Medicine Traditional Residency Program also recently ended its 28-hour call, during which residents worked 24 hours with an additional 4 hours to transfer the patient to the incoming team. The move was made in response to residents’ requests, saying that the grueling call rotation’s time had come. The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.
Proponents of alternate scheduling blocks [4 + 4 or 6 + 2] say that they improve residents’ educational experience, patient care, and continuity of care, reduce burnout, and guarantee residents time off.
Advancing Resident Well-Being
“The premise of looking at scheduling in a more intentional way is a sound one in the process of trying to support and advance resident well-being,” said Mark Greenawald, MD, vice chair of academic affairs, well-being, and professional development for the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine’s Department of Family and Community Medicine in Roanoke.
He said it’s up to residency program directors or graduate medical education departments within a specialty to determine whether such scheduling changes fit their requirements for inpatient and outpatient care and training electives. Requirements may limit some scheduling changes, but within the specialty, there’s some flexibility to be creative with rotations. The CU study considered how to create a residency rhythm without stacking inpatient rotations so there’s recovery time.
“Human beings need a break. If residents work 80 hours continually, they will start to experience greater distress, which for many leads to burnout,” he said
Still, the study includes design flaws because it doesn’t explain how call times and hours differ between inpatient and outpatient rotations. “My own [family medicine] program also does outpatient clinics when we have inpatient service. We have half days in the clinic, which ensures better continuity care with the patient.”
Dr. Greenawald has yet to see much research published about the impact of resident schedule changes. By taking an experimental approach, the CU study showed that their particular change positively affected burnout. If the study leads to improvements in rotation schedules or encourages other programs to experiment with their schedules, it will be a step in the right direction.
How Residents Respond
Haidn Foster, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, remembered experiencing burnout as an intern. At that time, he occasionally dealt with poor patient outcomes and sick patients while working long hours with only 1 day off each week. During a particularly challenging rotation, he felt overwhelmed and numb, which was exacerbated if a patient’s condition worsened or they passed away, he said.
His program follows a schedule of 6 weeks of inpatient training and 2 weeks of outpatient rotations (6 + 2). He said that restructuring residents’ schedules may be more effective than commonly used individual wellness modules, referring to the CU study. “The authors tried out a novel systematic way to tackle the epidemic of physician burnout overwhelming people in the medical community.”
Although the study found that schedule changes don’t affect standardized exam scores, Dr. Foster wondered about preceptor ratings, another marker for clinical competency.
He said future studies should attempt to change the structure of medical training delivery by evaluating models that best reduce burnout, are consistent with residents’ career goals, and produce competent physicians. “Burnout plagues our medical system and leads to too many physicians and physicians-in-training leaving the field or taking their lives. I’m not sure this particular mechanism gets us there, but it’s a step, and so that’s very important.”
Like Dr. Foster, Dr. Whelihan follows a 6 + 2 schedule. He said he would have welcomed a schedule that included more outpatient and less inpatient training and can see how changes in scheduling could reduce burnout. “More outpatient time gives you an opportunity to breathe. You get a little more time off working in clinic with less sick people at a slower pace.”
Ally Fuher, MD, said she chose CU’s Internal Medicine Residency Program 4 years ago largely because of its innovative schedule. Now the program’s chief medical resident, she knew the structure would give her more time to pursue other nonclinical interests including research and medical education, meet regularly with mentors, visit family in another state, and attend important life events.
She acknowledged that the alternative would have meant a more irregular schedule with the possibility of working as many as 80 hours a week on back-to-back inpatient rotations with only 1 day off a week, leaving minimal time to plan other activities, let alone rest and recover.
Dr. Fuher said a balanced schedule made her a more well-rounded person excited to engage in her profession. While she hasn’t personally experienced burnout, she realizes a schedule change may not completely solve the issue for others. However, it shows what progress programs can make when they create systemic structural change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s the difference between running a marathon and taking a leisurely stroll. That’s how recent pediatrics resident Joey Whelihan, MD, compared an 11-hour inpatient hospital day with an 8-hour outpatient shift where residents see patients in a clinic.
With inpatient training, “you are lucky if you have time to cook dinner, go to bed, and get ready for the next day,” said Dr. Whelihan, who recently started his adolescent medicine fellowship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia after 3 years of residency there. Some residents have call every fourth day during inpatient rotations, working 24-28 hours at a time. They come in one morning and go home the next, he told this news organization.
“Outpatient blocks give you more time to catch your breath and feel somewhat refreshed and ready to take care of patients.”
Longer stretches of inpatient rotations are not sustainable, Dr. Whelihan added, and residents are likely to become exhausted. Fatigue is a leading cause of burnout, a mental, physical, and emotional challenge that residency programs and national medical organizations have been struggling to address.
In recent years, there has been a movement to reduce the maximum consecutive duration of resident duty hours in residency programs across the country. Fueled by resident health and patient safety concerns, the movement is a shift from the previous 24- to 36-hour call duty schedules.
Improved Call Systems = Better Residents
The connection between burnout, well-being, and work schedules appears regularly in national program standards. “Residents and faculty members are at risk for burnout and depression,” according to the current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s standard residency program requirements.
“Programs, in partnership with their sponsoring institutions, have the same responsibility to address well-being as other aspects of resident competence,” the guidelines state. That charge includes “attention to scheduling, work intensity, and work compression that impacts resident well-being.”
In Medscape’s Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023, a third of residents surveyed rarely or never paid attention to their well-being, which closely mirrors the 31% who rarely or never had time for a social life. Slightly more residents (37%) said their work-life balance was “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than they expected.
“I think everyone has burnout as a resident, regardless of the type of program they are in,” Dr. Whelihan said. He described the experience as when you lack fulfillment and empathy and feel exhausted, callous, and removed from interactions with colleagues and patients.
The American Medical Association’s recently released report on the state of residency well-being in 2023 also found that about 43% of residents and fellows had at least one symptom of burnout, about a 2% increase from 2022.
Efforts to Combat Burnout
One residency program found a way to reduce burnout by changing its block scheduling from 4 inpatient weeks followed by 1 outpatient week (4 + 1) to 4 inpatient call-based weeks and 4 outpatient ambulatory, non-call weeks (4 + 4), according to a survey study published recently in JAMA Network Open. The initiative drew praise from some residents and a med school professor who studies wellness issues.
In the survey of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 and PGY-2 hospitalist and primary care residents from the University of Colorado’s Internal Medicine Residency Program, Aurora, between June 2019 and June 2021, the schedule change resulted in improved burnout scores and self-reported professional, educational, and health benefits.
As part of the survey, residents rated symptoms on a 7-point scale on the basis of how frequently they experienced emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.
Investigators also used a questionnaire to evaluate how participants perceived the rotation structure with various outcomes, including the ability to acquire clinical skills, access educational and scholarly opportunities, job satisfaction, and health.
The study concluded that the schedule change improved burnout, health, wellness, and professional development without weakening residents perceived clinical skills or standardized exam scores.
Still, the study authors acknowledged that several factors, including the pandemic, may have limited the findings. During that time, the study transitioned from in-person to electronic submissions, resulting in reduced response rates because of changes in staffing needs and fewer research and scholarly activities.
“One of the things we worried about was that the pandemic would make [burnout findings] look worse,” said lead author Dan Heppe, MD, a hospitalist and associate director of the CU Internal Medicine Residency Program. “Anecdotally, residents may have had more support in our program than perhaps some other programs. Though they had long hours with very sick patients, we tried to keep going in a positive direction.”
Dr. Heppe said in an interview that the purpose of the schedule change was to space out more intense rotations and build in more time for research, leadership, teaching, and professional development. He suggested the new schedule could help with other aspects of residents’ careers, exposing them to alternate avenues earlier in their training and in a more structured way.
Like most of the study authors, Dr. Heppe is a graduate of the residency program. He recalled how the program changed from multiple inpatient months in a row with clinic half days during those rotations to a 4 + 1 schedule. But the 1 week between inpatient rotations wasn’t enough time to recover or catch up on clinical work, said Dr. Heppe, who is also an associate professor of medicine at CU.
“It was too erratic,” he said of his former residency schedule. “There was a month of research here or there and clinic and then right back to the ICU for a couple of months without a break, and it was less predictable.”
Dr. Heppe said other residency programs have expressed interest in duplicating CU’s schedule change. He admits it may be difficult because of intensive schedule coordination, and some hospitals may not want to reduce clinical services.
The Yale Internal Medicine Traditional Residency Program also recently ended its 28-hour call, during which residents worked 24 hours with an additional 4 hours to transfer the patient to the incoming team. The move was made in response to residents’ requests, saying that the grueling call rotation’s time had come. The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.
Proponents of alternate scheduling blocks [4 + 4 or 6 + 2] say that they improve residents’ educational experience, patient care, and continuity of care, reduce burnout, and guarantee residents time off.
Advancing Resident Well-Being
“The premise of looking at scheduling in a more intentional way is a sound one in the process of trying to support and advance resident well-being,” said Mark Greenawald, MD, vice chair of academic affairs, well-being, and professional development for the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine’s Department of Family and Community Medicine in Roanoke.
He said it’s up to residency program directors or graduate medical education departments within a specialty to determine whether such scheduling changes fit their requirements for inpatient and outpatient care and training electives. Requirements may limit some scheduling changes, but within the specialty, there’s some flexibility to be creative with rotations. The CU study considered how to create a residency rhythm without stacking inpatient rotations so there’s recovery time.
“Human beings need a break. If residents work 80 hours continually, they will start to experience greater distress, which for many leads to burnout,” he said
Still, the study includes design flaws because it doesn’t explain how call times and hours differ between inpatient and outpatient rotations. “My own [family medicine] program also does outpatient clinics when we have inpatient service. We have half days in the clinic, which ensures better continuity care with the patient.”
Dr. Greenawald has yet to see much research published about the impact of resident schedule changes. By taking an experimental approach, the CU study showed that their particular change positively affected burnout. If the study leads to improvements in rotation schedules or encourages other programs to experiment with their schedules, it will be a step in the right direction.
How Residents Respond
Haidn Foster, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, remembered experiencing burnout as an intern. At that time, he occasionally dealt with poor patient outcomes and sick patients while working long hours with only 1 day off each week. During a particularly challenging rotation, he felt overwhelmed and numb, which was exacerbated if a patient’s condition worsened or they passed away, he said.
His program follows a schedule of 6 weeks of inpatient training and 2 weeks of outpatient rotations (6 + 2). He said that restructuring residents’ schedules may be more effective than commonly used individual wellness modules, referring to the CU study. “The authors tried out a novel systematic way to tackle the epidemic of physician burnout overwhelming people in the medical community.”
Although the study found that schedule changes don’t affect standardized exam scores, Dr. Foster wondered about preceptor ratings, another marker for clinical competency.
He said future studies should attempt to change the structure of medical training delivery by evaluating models that best reduce burnout, are consistent with residents’ career goals, and produce competent physicians. “Burnout plagues our medical system and leads to too many physicians and physicians-in-training leaving the field or taking their lives. I’m not sure this particular mechanism gets us there, but it’s a step, and so that’s very important.”
Like Dr. Foster, Dr. Whelihan follows a 6 + 2 schedule. He said he would have welcomed a schedule that included more outpatient and less inpatient training and can see how changes in scheduling could reduce burnout. “More outpatient time gives you an opportunity to breathe. You get a little more time off working in clinic with less sick people at a slower pace.”
Ally Fuher, MD, said she chose CU’s Internal Medicine Residency Program 4 years ago largely because of its innovative schedule. Now the program’s chief medical resident, she knew the structure would give her more time to pursue other nonclinical interests including research and medical education, meet regularly with mentors, visit family in another state, and attend important life events.
She acknowledged that the alternative would have meant a more irregular schedule with the possibility of working as many as 80 hours a week on back-to-back inpatient rotations with only 1 day off a week, leaving minimal time to plan other activities, let alone rest and recover.
Dr. Fuher said a balanced schedule made her a more well-rounded person excited to engage in her profession. While she hasn’t personally experienced burnout, she realizes a schedule change may not completely solve the issue for others. However, it shows what progress programs can make when they create systemic structural change.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Double-Expresser’ DLBCL: Tucidinostat Improved R-CHOP Outcomes
At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), they announced that combining the histone deacetylase inhibitor tucidinostat with standard R-CHOP chemotherapy in previously untreated “double-expresser” patients improved complete response and event-free survival (EFS) rates over R-CHOP alone.
The trial, dubbed DEB, is the first phase 3 investigation to confirm the benefit of combination treatment with an epigenetic agent for such patients, lead investigator and study presenter Weili Zhao, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Shanghai Institute of Hematology, told her audience.
“Tucidinostat plus R-CHOP could be a new frontline treatment option in this patient population,” Dr. Zhao said.
However, the agent is not available in the United States, at least for now. It is approved in China for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and HER2-negative breast cancer and in Japan for PTCL and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.
Dr. Zhao said that tucidinostat was also conditionally approved for DLBCL in China recently, based on the strength of the DEB results.
Study discussant Peter Riedell, MD, a hematologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, was cautious on several points.
First, there’s been no overall survival benefit in the trial, but follow-up so far has been short, at a median of 13.9 months, and Dr. Zhao reported interim, not final, results.
Dr. Riedell also noted that there were more grade 3 or worse adverse events, particularly hematologic side effects, hypokalemia, and pneumonia, with tucidinostat add-on in DEB.
Other outstanding questions include the applicability of the findings to non-Chinese patients and the effect of adding tucidinostat to another common DLCBL chemotherapy regimen, pola-R-CHP, which is being increasingly used in the United States for higher-risk disease, which includes double-expressers of the MYC and BCLC oncogenes.
DEB equally randomized 423 patients at 40 centers in China to either six cycles of R-CHOP with tucidinostat 20 μg twice weekly or R-CHOP with placebo. Complete responders went on to either tucidinostat or placebo maintenance treatment for up to 24 weeks. Subjects had an International Prognostic Index score of at least 2.
Out of a total of 152 EFS events, 64 (30.3%) were in the tucidinostat group and 88 (41.5%) were in the placebo group; 24-month EFS was 58.9% with tucidinostat and 46.2% with R-CHOP alone (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .018).
Meanwhile, the complete response rate with tucidinostat was 73.0% versus 61.8% (P = .014).
Although there were more higher-grade adverse events in the experimental arm, most patients were able to tolerate and complete the planned treatment cycles.
The study was funded by tucidinostat maker Chipscreen Biosciences. Dr. Zhao reported no disclosures. Dr. Riedell disclosed ties with numerous companies, including BeiGene (a partner of Chipscreen) and Novartis.
At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), they announced that combining the histone deacetylase inhibitor tucidinostat with standard R-CHOP chemotherapy in previously untreated “double-expresser” patients improved complete response and event-free survival (EFS) rates over R-CHOP alone.
The trial, dubbed DEB, is the first phase 3 investigation to confirm the benefit of combination treatment with an epigenetic agent for such patients, lead investigator and study presenter Weili Zhao, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Shanghai Institute of Hematology, told her audience.
“Tucidinostat plus R-CHOP could be a new frontline treatment option in this patient population,” Dr. Zhao said.
However, the agent is not available in the United States, at least for now. It is approved in China for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and HER2-negative breast cancer and in Japan for PTCL and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.
Dr. Zhao said that tucidinostat was also conditionally approved for DLBCL in China recently, based on the strength of the DEB results.
Study discussant Peter Riedell, MD, a hematologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, was cautious on several points.
First, there’s been no overall survival benefit in the trial, but follow-up so far has been short, at a median of 13.9 months, and Dr. Zhao reported interim, not final, results.
Dr. Riedell also noted that there were more grade 3 or worse adverse events, particularly hematologic side effects, hypokalemia, and pneumonia, with tucidinostat add-on in DEB.
Other outstanding questions include the applicability of the findings to non-Chinese patients and the effect of adding tucidinostat to another common DLCBL chemotherapy regimen, pola-R-CHP, which is being increasingly used in the United States for higher-risk disease, which includes double-expressers of the MYC and BCLC oncogenes.
DEB equally randomized 423 patients at 40 centers in China to either six cycles of R-CHOP with tucidinostat 20 μg twice weekly or R-CHOP with placebo. Complete responders went on to either tucidinostat or placebo maintenance treatment for up to 24 weeks. Subjects had an International Prognostic Index score of at least 2.
Out of a total of 152 EFS events, 64 (30.3%) were in the tucidinostat group and 88 (41.5%) were in the placebo group; 24-month EFS was 58.9% with tucidinostat and 46.2% with R-CHOP alone (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .018).
Meanwhile, the complete response rate with tucidinostat was 73.0% versus 61.8% (P = .014).
Although there were more higher-grade adverse events in the experimental arm, most patients were able to tolerate and complete the planned treatment cycles.
The study was funded by tucidinostat maker Chipscreen Biosciences. Dr. Zhao reported no disclosures. Dr. Riedell disclosed ties with numerous companies, including BeiGene (a partner of Chipscreen) and Novartis.
At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), they announced that combining the histone deacetylase inhibitor tucidinostat with standard R-CHOP chemotherapy in previously untreated “double-expresser” patients improved complete response and event-free survival (EFS) rates over R-CHOP alone.
The trial, dubbed DEB, is the first phase 3 investigation to confirm the benefit of combination treatment with an epigenetic agent for such patients, lead investigator and study presenter Weili Zhao, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Shanghai Institute of Hematology, told her audience.
“Tucidinostat plus R-CHOP could be a new frontline treatment option in this patient population,” Dr. Zhao said.
However, the agent is not available in the United States, at least for now. It is approved in China for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and HER2-negative breast cancer and in Japan for PTCL and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.
Dr. Zhao said that tucidinostat was also conditionally approved for DLBCL in China recently, based on the strength of the DEB results.
Study discussant Peter Riedell, MD, a hematologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, was cautious on several points.
First, there’s been no overall survival benefit in the trial, but follow-up so far has been short, at a median of 13.9 months, and Dr. Zhao reported interim, not final, results.
Dr. Riedell also noted that there were more grade 3 or worse adverse events, particularly hematologic side effects, hypokalemia, and pneumonia, with tucidinostat add-on in DEB.
Other outstanding questions include the applicability of the findings to non-Chinese patients and the effect of adding tucidinostat to another common DLCBL chemotherapy regimen, pola-R-CHP, which is being increasingly used in the United States for higher-risk disease, which includes double-expressers of the MYC and BCLC oncogenes.
DEB equally randomized 423 patients at 40 centers in China to either six cycles of R-CHOP with tucidinostat 20 μg twice weekly or R-CHOP with placebo. Complete responders went on to either tucidinostat or placebo maintenance treatment for up to 24 weeks. Subjects had an International Prognostic Index score of at least 2.
Out of a total of 152 EFS events, 64 (30.3%) were in the tucidinostat group and 88 (41.5%) were in the placebo group; 24-month EFS was 58.9% with tucidinostat and 46.2% with R-CHOP alone (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .018).
Meanwhile, the complete response rate with tucidinostat was 73.0% versus 61.8% (P = .014).
Although there were more higher-grade adverse events in the experimental arm, most patients were able to tolerate and complete the planned treatment cycles.
The study was funded by tucidinostat maker Chipscreen Biosciences. Dr. Zhao reported no disclosures. Dr. Riedell disclosed ties with numerous companies, including BeiGene (a partner of Chipscreen) and Novartis.
FROM ASCO 2024
ASCO 2024: An Expert’s Top Hematology Highlights
Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.
In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.
Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?
Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.
The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.
Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?
Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.
Q: What’s new about this kind of research?
Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.
Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?
Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.
In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.
This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.
Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?
Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.
[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]
Q: What makes this drug unique?
Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.
Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?
Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.
This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.
Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?
Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.
Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.
In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.
Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?
Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.
The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.
Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?
Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.
Q: What’s new about this kind of research?
Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.
Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?
Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.
In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.
This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.
Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?
Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.
[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]
Q: What makes this drug unique?
Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.
Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?
Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.
This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.
Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?
Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.
Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.
In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.
Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?
Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.
The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.
Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?
Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.
Q: What’s new about this kind of research?
Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.
Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?
Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.
In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.
This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.
Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?
Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.
[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]
Q: What makes this drug unique?
Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.
Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?
Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.
This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.
Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?
Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.
Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.
A Doctor’s Guide to Relocation
Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.
The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.
This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
1. Find Relocation Resources
First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.
Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.
Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.
Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.
When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.
If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
2. Reach Out and Buddy Up
Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.
Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.
On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.
Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.
To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’
Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”
“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
4. Move Early
Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.
Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.
“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary
During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.
Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”
Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.
“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever
When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.
Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”
Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.
Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.
The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.
This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
1. Find Relocation Resources
First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.
Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.
Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.
Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.
When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.
If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
2. Reach Out and Buddy Up
Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.
Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.
On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.
Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.
To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’
Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”
“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
4. Move Early
Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.
Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.
“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary
During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.
Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”
Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.
“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever
When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.
Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”
Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.
Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.
The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.
This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
1. Find Relocation Resources
First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.
Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.
Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.
Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.
When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.
If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
2. Reach Out and Buddy Up
Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.
Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.
On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.
Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.
To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’
Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”
“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
4. Move Early
Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.
Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.
“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary
During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.
Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”
Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.
“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever
When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.
Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”
Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.
Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.