MDedge Endocrinology

NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.

Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,

“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm⁻⁵ reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.

“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.

Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH

Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.

“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.

The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
 

Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%

STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.

In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.

The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.

The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.

The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.

“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.

Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH

Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.

“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”

Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.

Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.

STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.

Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,

“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm⁻⁵ reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.

“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.

Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH

Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.

“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.

The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
 

Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%

STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.

In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.

The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.

The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.

The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.

“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.

Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH

Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.

“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”

Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.

Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.

STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.

Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,

“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm⁻⁵ reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.

“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.

Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH

Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.

“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.

The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
 

Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%

STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.

In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.

The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.

The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.

The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.

“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.

Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH

Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.

“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”

Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.

Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.

STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

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

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

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

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

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

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

In what some call a “disturbing trend,” efforts are being made to broaden the definition of “family members” who can sue physicians for wrongful death. In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.

The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.

Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.

The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.

In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.

Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
 

Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit

The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.

“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”

Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.

In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.

Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.

The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.

“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”

The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”

Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.

Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”

“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”

Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
 

What will happen in the future?

While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”

Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”

Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”

For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”

Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”

Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Metformin appears to play a role in preventing long COVID when taken early during a COVID-19 infection, according to preprints with The Lancet on SSRN. The preprint hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed or published in a journal.

In particular, metformin led to a 42% drop in long COVID among people who had a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. 

“Long COVID affects millions of people, and preventing long COVID through a treatment like metformin could prevent significant disruptions in people’s lives,” said lead author Carolyn Bramante, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Between January 2021 and February 2022, Dr. Bramante and colleagues tested three oral medications – metformin (typically used to treat type 2 diabetes), ivermectin (an antiparasitic), and fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) – in a clinical trial across the United States called COVID-OUT. The people being studied, investigators, care providers, and others involved in the study were blinded to the randomized treatments. The trial was decentralized, with no in-person contact with participants.

The researchers included patients who were aged 30-85 with overweight or obesity, had documentation of a confirmed COVID-19 infection, had fewer than 7 days of symptoms, had no known prior infection, and joined the study within 3 days of their positive test. The study included monthly follow-up for 300 days, and participants indicated whether they received a long COVID diagnosis from a medical doctor, which the researchers confirmed in medical records after participants gave consent.

The medications were prepackaged into pill boxes for fast delivery to participants and to ensure they took the correct number of each type of pill. The packages were sent via same-day courier or overnight shipping.

The metformin doses were doled out over 14 days, with 500 milligrams on the first day, 500 milligrams twice a day for the next 4 days, and then 500 milligrams in the morning and 1,000 milligrams in the evening for the remaining 9 days.

Among the 1,323 people studied, 1,125 agreed to do long-term follow-up for long COVID: 564 in the metformin group and 561 in the blinded placebo group. The average age was 45, and 56% were women, including 7% who were pregnant. 

The average time from the start of symptoms to starting medication was 5 days, and 47% began taking the drug within 4 days or less. About 55% had received the primary COVID-19 vaccination series, including 5.1% who received an initial booster, before enrolling in the study.

Overall, 8.4% of participants reported that a medical provider diagnosed them with long COVID. Of those who took metformin, 6.3% developed long COVID, compared to 10.6% among those who took the identical-matched placebo.

The risk reduction for metformin was 42% versus the placebo, which was consistent across subgroups, including vaccination status and different COVID-19 variants.

When metformin was started less than 4 days after COVID-19 symptoms started, the effect was potentially even greater, with a 64% reduction, as compared with a 36% reduction among those who started metformin after 4 or more days after symptoms.

Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed any benefits for preventing long COVID.

At the same time, the study authors caution that more research is needed. 

“The COVID-OUT trial does not indicate whether or not metformin would be effective at preventing long COVID if started at the time of emergency department visit or hospitalization for COVID-19, nor whether metformin would be effective as treatment in persons who already have long COVID,” they wrote. “With the burden of long COVID on society, confirmation is urgently needed in a trial that addresses our study’s limitations in order to translate these results into practice and policy.”

Several risk factors for long COVID emerged in the analysis. About 11.1% of the women had a long COVID diagnosis, compared with 4.9% of the men. Also, those who had received at least the primary vaccine series had a lower risk of developing long COVID, at 6.6%, as compared with 10.5% among the unvaccinated. Only 1 of the 57 people who received a booster shot developed long COVID.

Notably, pregnant and lactating people were included in this study, which is important given that pregnant people face higher risks for poor COVID-19 outcomes and are excluded from most nonobstetric clinical trials, the study authors wrote. In this study, they were randomized to metformin or placebo but not ivermectin or fluvoxamine due to limited research about the safety of those drugs during pregnancy and lactation.

The results are now under journal review but show findings consistent with those from other recent studies. Also, in August 2022, the authors published results from COVID-OUT that showed metformin led to a 42% reduction in hospital visits, emergency department visits, and deaths related to severe COVID-19.

“Given the lack of side effects and cost for a 2-week course, I think these data support use of metformin now,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals. 

Dr. Topol, who wasn’t involved with this study, has been a leading voice on COVID-19 research throughout the pandemic. He noted the need for more studies, including a factorial design trial to test metformin and Paxlovid, which has shown promise in preventing long COVID. Dr. Topol also wrote about the preprint in Ground Truths, his online newsletter.

“As I’ve written in the past, I don’t use the term ‘breakthrough’ lightly,” he wrote. “But to see such a pronounced benefit in the current randomized trial of metformin, in the context of its being so safe and low cost, I’d give it a breakthrough categorization.”

Another way to put it, Dr. Topol wrote, is that based on this study, he would take metformin if he became infected with COVID-19. 

Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency medicine doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, also wrote about the study in his newsletter, Inside Medicine. He noted that the 42% reduction in long COVID means that 23 COVID-19 patients need to be treated with metformin to prevent one long COVID diagnosis, which is an “important reduction.”

“Bottom line: If a person who meets criteria for obesity or overweight status were to ask me if they should take metformin (for 2 weeks) starting as soon as they learn they have COVID-19, I would say yes in many if not most cases, based on this new data,” he wrote. “This is starting to look like a real win.”

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

Evidence from three studies in sports cardiology presented at ACC 2023 piqued my interest. Not only because I love endurance sport but because the studies reported data that upset prevailing ideas.

LIVE HCM: Surprising result No. 1

Rachel Lampert, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented results of the LIVE-HCM observational study of vigorous exercise in more than 1,600 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (40% female). The investigators aimed to determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise, including competitive sports, is associated with increased risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia and/or mortality in patients with HCM.

Because of the myocardial disease, HCM comes with a risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Prevailing wisdom held that vigorous exercise in these patients would be hazardous. It was all expert opinion; there were no data. Now there are.

Dr. Lampert and colleagues recruited patients from 42 international HCM centers. Patients self-enrolled and the researchers created three groups based on self-reported levels of exercise – vigorous, moderate, and sedentary. The main comparison was between vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers (including moderate and sedentary). The two groups were mostly matched on baseline characteristics and typical of patients with HCM.

The primary endpoint was a composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, syncope likely caused by an arrhythmia, or an appropriate shock from an ICD.

The event rates were low in all groups and almost identical in vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers. Sub-group analyses found no increased risk in HCM patients who identified as competitive athletes.

Dr. Lampert said these data “do not support universal restriction of vigorous exercise in patients with HCM.”
 

Return to play: Surprising result No. 2

Undergraduate student Katherine Martinez from Loyola University, Chicago, presented an observational analysis of 76 elite athletes with genetic heart disease who gained a return-to-play approval from four expert centers in the United States.

The three-step, return-to-play protocol from these specialized centers deserves emphasis. First was the initial evaluation, including two ECGs, 24-hour ECG monitor, echocardiography, and treadmill exercise testing. Second was a discussion between clinicians and patients regarding the athlete’s situation. The third step was to inform coaches and staff of the team and instruct athletes to obtain a personal AED, stay replenished with electrolytes, avoid QT-prolonging drugs, and continue with annual follow-up.

Slightly more than half of these patients had HCM and almost a third had long QT syndrome. Nearly one-third had an ICD implant and 22 were women.

Of the 76 athletes, 73 chose to return to play; however, 4 of these remained disqualified because of their team’s decision. Of the remaining 69, only 3 had one or more breakthrough cardiac events during 200 patient-years of follow-up.

These comprised one male Division I basketball player with HCM who had an ICD shock while moving furniture; another male Division 1 hockey player with long QT syndrome who was taking beta-blockers experienced syncope while coming off the bench and while cooking; and a third male professional hockey player with HCM, on beta-blockers, had syncope without exertion.

The authors concluded that when there was careful evaluation by experts and shared decision-making, a specific plan to return to sport can be put into place for the highest-level athletes.
 

Masters@Heart: Surprising result No. 3

Ruben De Bosscher MD, PhD, from KU Leuven (Belgium), presented the Masters@Heart study on behalf of a Belgian team of researchers. The question they asked was whether lifelong endurance exercise is associated with more coronary atherosclerosis than standard “normal” exercise levels.

That question brings up the paradox of exercise, which is that numerous observational studies find that exercise strongly associates with lower rates of cardiovascular events, but imaging studies also report high rates of coronary artery calcium in endurance athletes, especially in those who have run multiple marathons.

Masters@Heart investigators sought to explore this paradox by performing detailed coronary imaging in three groups – lifelong athletes, late-onset athletes (after age 30 years), and super-healthy controls. Through advertisements they obtained about 1,100 middle-aged male volunteers (mean age, 55 years). Of these, 605 men were selected at random to participate to reduce the chance of enrolling people who responded to the ads because of health concerns.

Investigators assigned those selected based on self-report of exercise. The control group was notable for their good health: they were free of any risk factors, took (almost) no meds, exercised regularly but not excessively (about 3 hours per week) and had a VO₂ max of 122% of predicted.

The groups were well matched on baseline characteristics. Cycling predominated as the exercise of choice (this is a Belgian study after all). All patients had an extensive evaluation including coronary CT imaging.

European Heart Journal published the provocative results.

• Lifelong exercisers had a significantly higher CAC burden than controls, which confirms previous work.
• Lifelong exercisers had a higher percentage of multiple coronary plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• There were no significant differences in the mixture of plaque types in the three groups. About two thirds of the plaques in each group were calcified and the remainder were deemed noncalcified or mixed.
• When looking only at noncalcified plaques, lifelong exercisers tended to have a higher prevalence of multiple plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• So named “vulnerable” plaques were extremely infrequent in all three groups.

The authors concluded that lifelong endurance sport relative to a generic healthy lifestyle was not associated with more favorable coronary plaque composition.
 

Comments

Each of these three studies provided data where there was none. That is always a good thing.

The major theme from the first two studies is that expert opinion was too cautious. Doctors have long held the idea that patients with genetic heart disease, especially hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, are vulnerable, fragile even, when it comes to vigorous sport.

This new evidence upends this belief, as long as return to sport occurs in the setting of robust patient education and expert evaluation and surveillance.

Paternalism in prohibiting participation in sport because of genetic heart disease has joined the long list of medical reversals.

Masters@Heart provides a slightly different message. It finds that lifelong high-level exercise does not prevent coronary atherosclerosis in men. And, more provocatively, if replicated, might even show that long-term exposure to the biochemical, inflammatory, or hormonal effects of endurance training may actually be atherogenic. Like all good science, these findings raise more questions to explore in the realm of atherogenesis.

Two of the main limitations of the Belgian study was that the control arm was quite healthy; had the comparison arm been typical of sedentary controls in say, the Southeastern United States, the coronary lesions found in longtime exercisers may have looked more favorable. The more significant limitation is the lack of outcomes. Images of coronary arteries remain a surrogate marker. It’s possible that, like statins, higher levels of exercise may stabilize plaque and actually lower the risk for events.

The Belgian authors suggest – as many have – a J-curve of exercise benefits, wherein too little exercise is clearly bad, but too much exercise may also increase risk. In other words, for maximizing health, there may be a Goldilocks amount of exercise.

The problem with this idea comes in its pragmatic translation. The number of lifelong high-level, middle-aged endurance athletes that cite heart health reasons for their affliction is ... almost zero. Nearly everyone I have met in the endurance sport fraternity harbors no notion that racing a bike or running multiple marathons per year is a healthy endeavor.

Paternalism, therefore, would also fall in the realm of limiting lifelong exercise in addicted middle-aged athletes.

Via email, sports cardiologist Michael Emery, MD, reiterated the main immediate message from Masters@Heart: “Exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear honestly).”

I for one cannot give up on endurance exercise. I won’t likely race anymore but I am like the lab rat who needs to run on the wheel. Whether this affects my coronary plaque burden matters not to me.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Evidence from three studies in sports cardiology presented at ACC 2023 piqued my interest. Not only because I love endurance sport but because the studies reported data that upset prevailing ideas.

LIVE HCM: Surprising result No. 1

Rachel Lampert, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented results of the LIVE-HCM observational study of vigorous exercise in more than 1,600 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (40% female). The investigators aimed to determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise, including competitive sports, is associated with increased risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia and/or mortality in patients with HCM.

Because of the myocardial disease, HCM comes with a risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Prevailing wisdom held that vigorous exercise in these patients would be hazardous. It was all expert opinion; there were no data. Now there are.

Dr. Lampert and colleagues recruited patients from 42 international HCM centers. Patients self-enrolled and the researchers created three groups based on self-reported levels of exercise – vigorous, moderate, and sedentary. The main comparison was between vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers (including moderate and sedentary). The two groups were mostly matched on baseline characteristics and typical of patients with HCM.

The primary endpoint was a composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, syncope likely caused by an arrhythmia, or an appropriate shock from an ICD.

The event rates were low in all groups and almost identical in vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers. Sub-group analyses found no increased risk in HCM patients who identified as competitive athletes.

Dr. Lampert said these data “do not support universal restriction of vigorous exercise in patients with HCM.”
 

Return to play: Surprising result No. 2

Undergraduate student Katherine Martinez from Loyola University, Chicago, presented an observational analysis of 76 elite athletes with genetic heart disease who gained a return-to-play approval from four expert centers in the United States.

The three-step, return-to-play protocol from these specialized centers deserves emphasis. First was the initial evaluation, including two ECGs, 24-hour ECG monitor, echocardiography, and treadmill exercise testing. Second was a discussion between clinicians and patients regarding the athlete’s situation. The third step was to inform coaches and staff of the team and instruct athletes to obtain a personal AED, stay replenished with electrolytes, avoid QT-prolonging drugs, and continue with annual follow-up.

Slightly more than half of these patients had HCM and almost a third had long QT syndrome. Nearly one-third had an ICD implant and 22 were women.

Of the 76 athletes, 73 chose to return to play; however, 4 of these remained disqualified because of their team’s decision. Of the remaining 69, only 3 had one or more breakthrough cardiac events during 200 patient-years of follow-up.

These comprised one male Division I basketball player with HCM who had an ICD shock while moving furniture; another male Division 1 hockey player with long QT syndrome who was taking beta-blockers experienced syncope while coming off the bench and while cooking; and a third male professional hockey player with HCM, on beta-blockers, had syncope without exertion.

The authors concluded that when there was careful evaluation by experts and shared decision-making, a specific plan to return to sport can be put into place for the highest-level athletes.
 

Masters@Heart: Surprising result No. 3

Ruben De Bosscher MD, PhD, from KU Leuven (Belgium), presented the Masters@Heart study on behalf of a Belgian team of researchers. The question they asked was whether lifelong endurance exercise is associated with more coronary atherosclerosis than standard “normal” exercise levels.

That question brings up the paradox of exercise, which is that numerous observational studies find that exercise strongly associates with lower rates of cardiovascular events, but imaging studies also report high rates of coronary artery calcium in endurance athletes, especially in those who have run multiple marathons.

Masters@Heart investigators sought to explore this paradox by performing detailed coronary imaging in three groups – lifelong athletes, late-onset athletes (after age 30 years), and super-healthy controls. Through advertisements they obtained about 1,100 middle-aged male volunteers (mean age, 55 years). Of these, 605 men were selected at random to participate to reduce the chance of enrolling people who responded to the ads because of health concerns.

Investigators assigned those selected based on self-report of exercise. The control group was notable for their good health: they were free of any risk factors, took (almost) no meds, exercised regularly but not excessively (about 3 hours per week) and had a VO₂ max of 122% of predicted.

The groups were well matched on baseline characteristics. Cycling predominated as the exercise of choice (this is a Belgian study after all). All patients had an extensive evaluation including coronary CT imaging.

European Heart Journal published the provocative results.

• Lifelong exercisers had a significantly higher CAC burden than controls, which confirms previous work.
• Lifelong exercisers had a higher percentage of multiple coronary plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• There were no significant differences in the mixture of plaque types in the three groups. About two thirds of the plaques in each group were calcified and the remainder were deemed noncalcified or mixed.
• When looking only at noncalcified plaques, lifelong exercisers tended to have a higher prevalence of multiple plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• So named “vulnerable” plaques were extremely infrequent in all three groups.

The authors concluded that lifelong endurance sport relative to a generic healthy lifestyle was not associated with more favorable coronary plaque composition.
 

Comments

Each of these three studies provided data where there was none. That is always a good thing.

The major theme from the first two studies is that expert opinion was too cautious. Doctors have long held the idea that patients with genetic heart disease, especially hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, are vulnerable, fragile even, when it comes to vigorous sport.

This new evidence upends this belief, as long as return to sport occurs in the setting of robust patient education and expert evaluation and surveillance.

Paternalism in prohibiting participation in sport because of genetic heart disease has joined the long list of medical reversals.

Masters@Heart provides a slightly different message. It finds that lifelong high-level exercise does not prevent coronary atherosclerosis in men. And, more provocatively, if replicated, might even show that long-term exposure to the biochemical, inflammatory, or hormonal effects of endurance training may actually be atherogenic. Like all good science, these findings raise more questions to explore in the realm of atherogenesis.

Two of the main limitations of the Belgian study was that the control arm was quite healthy; had the comparison arm been typical of sedentary controls in say, the Southeastern United States, the coronary lesions found in longtime exercisers may have looked more favorable. The more significant limitation is the lack of outcomes. Images of coronary arteries remain a surrogate marker. It’s possible that, like statins, higher levels of exercise may stabilize plaque and actually lower the risk for events.

The Belgian authors suggest – as many have – a J-curve of exercise benefits, wherein too little exercise is clearly bad, but too much exercise may also increase risk. In other words, for maximizing health, there may be a Goldilocks amount of exercise.

The problem with this idea comes in its pragmatic translation. The number of lifelong high-level, middle-aged endurance athletes that cite heart health reasons for their affliction is ... almost zero. Nearly everyone I have met in the endurance sport fraternity harbors no notion that racing a bike or running multiple marathons per year is a healthy endeavor.

Paternalism, therefore, would also fall in the realm of limiting lifelong exercise in addicted middle-aged athletes.

Via email, sports cardiologist Michael Emery, MD, reiterated the main immediate message from Masters@Heart: “Exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear honestly).”

I for one cannot give up on endurance exercise. I won’t likely race anymore but I am like the lab rat who needs to run on the wheel. Whether this affects my coronary plaque burden matters not to me.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Evidence from three studies in sports cardiology presented at ACC 2023 piqued my interest. Not only because I love endurance sport but because the studies reported data that upset prevailing ideas.

LIVE HCM: Surprising result No. 1

Rachel Lampert, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented results of the LIVE-HCM observational study of vigorous exercise in more than 1,600 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (40% female). The investigators aimed to determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise, including competitive sports, is associated with increased risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia and/or mortality in patients with HCM.

Because of the myocardial disease, HCM comes with a risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Prevailing wisdom held that vigorous exercise in these patients would be hazardous. It was all expert opinion; there were no data. Now there are.

Dr. Lampert and colleagues recruited patients from 42 international HCM centers. Patients self-enrolled and the researchers created three groups based on self-reported levels of exercise – vigorous, moderate, and sedentary. The main comparison was between vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers (including moderate and sedentary). The two groups were mostly matched on baseline characteristics and typical of patients with HCM.

The primary endpoint was a composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, syncope likely caused by an arrhythmia, or an appropriate shock from an ICD.

The event rates were low in all groups and almost identical in vigorous versus nonvigorous exercisers. Sub-group analyses found no increased risk in HCM patients who identified as competitive athletes.

Dr. Lampert said these data “do not support universal restriction of vigorous exercise in patients with HCM.”
 

Return to play: Surprising result No. 2

Undergraduate student Katherine Martinez from Loyola University, Chicago, presented an observational analysis of 76 elite athletes with genetic heart disease who gained a return-to-play approval from four expert centers in the United States.

The three-step, return-to-play protocol from these specialized centers deserves emphasis. First was the initial evaluation, including two ECGs, 24-hour ECG monitor, echocardiography, and treadmill exercise testing. Second was a discussion between clinicians and patients regarding the athlete’s situation. The third step was to inform coaches and staff of the team and instruct athletes to obtain a personal AED, stay replenished with electrolytes, avoid QT-prolonging drugs, and continue with annual follow-up.

Slightly more than half of these patients had HCM and almost a third had long QT syndrome. Nearly one-third had an ICD implant and 22 were women.

Of the 76 athletes, 73 chose to return to play; however, 4 of these remained disqualified because of their team’s decision. Of the remaining 69, only 3 had one or more breakthrough cardiac events during 200 patient-years of follow-up.

These comprised one male Division I basketball player with HCM who had an ICD shock while moving furniture; another male Division 1 hockey player with long QT syndrome who was taking beta-blockers experienced syncope while coming off the bench and while cooking; and a third male professional hockey player with HCM, on beta-blockers, had syncope without exertion.

The authors concluded that when there was careful evaluation by experts and shared decision-making, a specific plan to return to sport can be put into place for the highest-level athletes.
 

Masters@Heart: Surprising result No. 3

Ruben De Bosscher MD, PhD, from KU Leuven (Belgium), presented the Masters@Heart study on behalf of a Belgian team of researchers. The question they asked was whether lifelong endurance exercise is associated with more coronary atherosclerosis than standard “normal” exercise levels.

That question brings up the paradox of exercise, which is that numerous observational studies find that exercise strongly associates with lower rates of cardiovascular events, but imaging studies also report high rates of coronary artery calcium in endurance athletes, especially in those who have run multiple marathons.

Masters@Heart investigators sought to explore this paradox by performing detailed coronary imaging in three groups – lifelong athletes, late-onset athletes (after age 30 years), and super-healthy controls. Through advertisements they obtained about 1,100 middle-aged male volunteers (mean age, 55 years). Of these, 605 men were selected at random to participate to reduce the chance of enrolling people who responded to the ads because of health concerns.

Investigators assigned those selected based on self-report of exercise. The control group was notable for their good health: they were free of any risk factors, took (almost) no meds, exercised regularly but not excessively (about 3 hours per week) and had a VO₂ max of 122% of predicted.

The groups were well matched on baseline characteristics. Cycling predominated as the exercise of choice (this is a Belgian study after all). All patients had an extensive evaluation including coronary CT imaging.

European Heart Journal published the provocative results.

• Lifelong exercisers had a significantly higher CAC burden than controls, which confirms previous work.
• Lifelong exercisers had a higher percentage of multiple coronary plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• There were no significant differences in the mixture of plaque types in the three groups. About two thirds of the plaques in each group were calcified and the remainder were deemed noncalcified or mixed.
• When looking only at noncalcified plaques, lifelong exercisers tended to have a higher prevalence of multiple plaques, plaques of at least 50%, and proximal plaques.
• So named “vulnerable” plaques were extremely infrequent in all three groups.

The authors concluded that lifelong endurance sport relative to a generic healthy lifestyle was not associated with more favorable coronary plaque composition.
 

Comments

Each of these three studies provided data where there was none. That is always a good thing.

The major theme from the first two studies is that expert opinion was too cautious. Doctors have long held the idea that patients with genetic heart disease, especially hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, are vulnerable, fragile even, when it comes to vigorous sport.

This new evidence upends this belief, as long as return to sport occurs in the setting of robust patient education and expert evaluation and surveillance.

Paternalism in prohibiting participation in sport because of genetic heart disease has joined the long list of medical reversals.

Masters@Heart provides a slightly different message. It finds that lifelong high-level exercise does not prevent coronary atherosclerosis in men. And, more provocatively, if replicated, might even show that long-term exposure to the biochemical, inflammatory, or hormonal effects of endurance training may actually be atherogenic. Like all good science, these findings raise more questions to explore in the realm of atherogenesis.

Two of the main limitations of the Belgian study was that the control arm was quite healthy; had the comparison arm been typical of sedentary controls in say, the Southeastern United States, the coronary lesions found in longtime exercisers may have looked more favorable. The more significant limitation is the lack of outcomes. Images of coronary arteries remain a surrogate marker. It’s possible that, like statins, higher levels of exercise may stabilize plaque and actually lower the risk for events.

The Belgian authors suggest – as many have – a J-curve of exercise benefits, wherein too little exercise is clearly bad, but too much exercise may also increase risk. In other words, for maximizing health, there may be a Goldilocks amount of exercise.

The problem with this idea comes in its pragmatic translation. The number of lifelong high-level, middle-aged endurance athletes that cite heart health reasons for their affliction is ... almost zero. Nearly everyone I have met in the endurance sport fraternity harbors no notion that racing a bike or running multiple marathons per year is a healthy endeavor.

Paternalism, therefore, would also fall in the realm of limiting lifelong exercise in addicted middle-aged athletes.

Via email, sports cardiologist Michael Emery, MD, reiterated the main immediate message from Masters@Heart: “Exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear honestly).”

I for one cannot give up on endurance exercise. I won’t likely race anymore but I am like the lab rat who needs to run on the wheel. Whether this affects my coronary plaque burden matters not to me.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A Michigan physician has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of health care fraud and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.

Sangita Patel, MD, 50, practiced at Advance Medical Home Physicians in Troy.

According to court documents, between July 2020 and June 2022 Patel was responsible for submitting Medicare claims for improper telehealth visits she didn’t conduct herself.

Dr. Patel, who accepted patients who paid in cash as well as those with Medicare and Medicaid coverage, billed approximately $3.4 million to Medicare between 2018 and 2022, according to court documents. An unusual number of these visits were billed using complex codes, an indication of health care fraud. The investigation also found that on many days, Dr. Patel billed for more than 24 hours of services. During this period, according to the document, 76% of Dr. Patel’s Medicare reimbursements were for telehealth.

Prosecutors say that Dr. Patel prescribed Schedule II controlled substances to more than 90% of the patients in these telehealth visits. She delegated her prescription authority to an unlicensed medical assistant. Through undercover visits and cell site search warrant data, the investigation found that Dr. Patel directed patients to contact, via cell phone, this assistant, who then entered electronic prescriptions into the electronic medical records system. Dr. Patel then signed the prescriptions and sent them to the pharmacies without ever interacting with the patients. Prosecutors also used text messages, obtained by search warrant, between Dr. Patel and her assistant and between the assistant and undercover informers to build their case.

Dr. Patel is also accused of referring patients to other providers, who in turn billed Medicare for claims associated with those patients. Advance Medical received $143,000 from these providers, potentially in violation of anti-kickback laws, according to bank records obtained by subpoena.

If convicted, Dr. Patel could be sentenced to up to 10 years in federal prison.

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

A Michigan physician has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of health care fraud and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.

Sangita Patel, MD, 50, practiced at Advance Medical Home Physicians in Troy.

According to court documents, between July 2020 and June 2022 Patel was responsible for submitting Medicare claims for improper telehealth visits she didn’t conduct herself.

Dr. Patel, who accepted patients who paid in cash as well as those with Medicare and Medicaid coverage, billed approximately $3.4 million to Medicare between 2018 and 2022, according to court documents. An unusual number of these visits were billed using complex codes, an indication of health care fraud. The investigation also found that on many days, Dr. Patel billed for more than 24 hours of services. During this period, according to the document, 76% of Dr. Patel’s Medicare reimbursements were for telehealth.

Prosecutors say that Dr. Patel prescribed Schedule II controlled substances to more than 90% of the patients in these telehealth visits. She delegated her prescription authority to an unlicensed medical assistant. Through undercover visits and cell site search warrant data, the investigation found that Dr. Patel directed patients to contact, via cell phone, this assistant, who then entered electronic prescriptions into the electronic medical records system. Dr. Patel then signed the prescriptions and sent them to the pharmacies without ever interacting with the patients. Prosecutors also used text messages, obtained by search warrant, between Dr. Patel and her assistant and between the assistant and undercover informers to build their case.

Dr. Patel is also accused of referring patients to other providers, who in turn billed Medicare for claims associated with those patients. Advance Medical received $143,000 from these providers, potentially in violation of anti-kickback laws, according to bank records obtained by subpoena.

If convicted, Dr. Patel could be sentenced to up to 10 years in federal prison.

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

A Michigan physician has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of health care fraud and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.

Sangita Patel, MD, 50, practiced at Advance Medical Home Physicians in Troy.

According to court documents, between July 2020 and June 2022 Patel was responsible for submitting Medicare claims for improper telehealth visits she didn’t conduct herself.

Dr. Patel, who accepted patients who paid in cash as well as those with Medicare and Medicaid coverage, billed approximately $3.4 million to Medicare between 2018 and 2022, according to court documents. An unusual number of these visits were billed using complex codes, an indication of health care fraud. The investigation also found that on many days, Dr. Patel billed for more than 24 hours of services. During this period, according to the document, 76% of Dr. Patel’s Medicare reimbursements were for telehealth.

Prosecutors say that Dr. Patel prescribed Schedule II controlled substances to more than 90% of the patients in these telehealth visits. She delegated her prescription authority to an unlicensed medical assistant. Through undercover visits and cell site search warrant data, the investigation found that Dr. Patel directed patients to contact, via cell phone, this assistant, who then entered electronic prescriptions into the electronic medical records system. Dr. Patel then signed the prescriptions and sent them to the pharmacies without ever interacting with the patients. Prosecutors also used text messages, obtained by search warrant, between Dr. Patel and her assistant and between the assistant and undercover informers to build their case.

Dr. Patel is also accused of referring patients to other providers, who in turn billed Medicare for claims associated with those patients. Advance Medical received $143,000 from these providers, potentially in violation of anti-kickback laws, according to bank records obtained by subpoena.

If convicted, Dr. Patel could be sentenced to up to 10 years in federal prison.

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

With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.

Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.

In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.

Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.

Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.

When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.

These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.

The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.

Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.

Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.

These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.

I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.

Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps. When our rep explained the potential for weight loss in patients without diabetes, I tried Ozempic off label. Within the first 2 weeks, I noticed a 3- to- 5-lb weight loss.

When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.

With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.

The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).

Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.

Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.

Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.

For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.

As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.

Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.

Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.

In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.

Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.

Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.

When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.

These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.

The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.

Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.

Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.

These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.

I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.

Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps. When our rep explained the potential for weight loss in patients without diabetes, I tried Ozempic off label. Within the first 2 weeks, I noticed a 3- to- 5-lb weight loss.

When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.

With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.

The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).

Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.

Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.

Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.

For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.

As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.

Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.

Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.

In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.

Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.

Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.

When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.

These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.

The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.

Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.

Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.

These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.

I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.

Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps. When our rep explained the potential for weight loss in patients without diabetes, I tried Ozempic off label. Within the first 2 weeks, I noticed a 3- to- 5-lb weight loss.

When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.

With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.

The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).

Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.

Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.

Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.

For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.

As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.

Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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