Federal Practitioner

PHILADELPHIA – Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day is linked to more rapid cognitive decline over time, results from a large study suggest.

Investigators examined the impact of different amounts of coffee and tea on fluid intelligence — a measure of cognitive functions including abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and logical thinking.

“It’s the old adage that too much of anything isn’t good. It’s all about balance, so moderate coffee consumption is okay but too much is probably not recommended,” said study investigator Kelsey R. Sewell, PhD, Advent Health Research Institute, Orlando, Florida. 

The findings of the study were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC).
 

One of the World’s Most Widely Consumed Beverages

Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages around the world. The beans contain a range of bioactive compounds, including caffeine, chlorogenic acid, and small amounts of vitamins and minerals.

Consistent evidence from observational and epidemiologic studies indicates that intake of both coffee and tea has beneficial effects on stroke, heart failure, cancers, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease.  

Several studies also suggest that coffee may reduce the risk for Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Sewell. However, there are limited longitudinal data on associations between coffee and tea intake and cognitive decline, particularly in distinct cognitive domains.

Dr. Sewell’s group previously published a study of cognitively unimpaired older adults that found greater coffee consumption was associated with slower cognitive decline and slower accumulation of brain beta-amyloid.

Their current study extends some of the prior findings and investigates the relationship between both coffee and tea intake and cognitive decline over time in a larger sample of older adults.

This new study included 8451 mostly female (60%) and White (97%) cognitively unimpaired adults older than 60 (mean age, 67.8 years) in the UK Biobank, a large-scale research resource containing in-depth, deidentified genetic and health information from half a million UK participants. Study subjects had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26, and about 26% were apolipoprotein epsilon 4 (APOE e4) gene carriers.

Researchers divided coffee and tea consumption into tertiles: high, moderate, and no consumption.

For daily coffee consumption, 18% reported drinking four or more cups (high consumption), 58% reported drinking one to three cups (moderate consumption), and 25% reported that they never drink coffee. For daily tea consumption, 47% reported drinking four or more cups (high consumption), 38% reported drinking one to three cups (moderate consumption), and 15% reported that they never drink tea.

The study assessed cognitive function at baseline and at least two additional patient visits. 

Researchers used linear mixed models to assess the relationships between coffee and tea intake and cognitive outcomes. The models adjusted for age, sex, Townsend deprivation index (reflecting socioeconomic status), ethnicity, APOE e4 status, and BMI.
 

Steeper Decline 

Compared with high coffee consumption (four or more cups daily), people who never consumed coffee (beta, 0.06; standard error [SE], 0.02; P = .005) and those with moderate consumption (beta, 0.07; SE, 0.02; P = < .001) had slower decline in fluid intelligence after an average of 8.83 years of follow-up.

“We can see that those with high coffee consumption showed the steepest decline in fluid intelligence across the follow up, compared to those with moderate coffee consumption and those never consuming coffee,” said Dr. Sewell, referring to illustrative graphs.

At the same time, “our data suggest that across this time period, moderate coffee consumption can serve as some kind of protective factor against cognitive decline,” she added.

For tea, there was a somewhat different pattern. People who never drank tea had a greater decline in fluid intelligence, compared with those who had moderate consumption (beta, 0.06; SE, 0.02; P = .0090) or high consumption (beta, 0.06; SE, 0.02; P = .003).

Because this is an observational study, “we still need randomized controlled trials to better understand the neuroprotective mechanism of coffee and tea compounds,” said Dr. Sewell.

Responding later to a query from a meeting delegate about how moderate coffee drinking could be protective, Dr. Sewell said there are probably “different levels of mechanisms,” including at the molecular level (possibly involving amyloid toxicity) and the behavioral level (possibly involving sleep patterns).

Dr. Sewell said that she hopes this line of investigation will lead to new avenues of research in preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease. 

“We hope that coffee and tea intake could contribute to the development of a safe and inexpensive strategy for delaying the onset and reducing the incidence for Alzheimer’s disease.”

A limitation of the study is possible recall bias, because coffee and tea consumption were self-reported. However, this may not be much of an issue because coffee and tea consumption “is usually quite a habitual behavior,” said Dr. Sewell.

The study also had no data on midlife coffee or tea consumption and did not compare the effect of different preparation methods or types of coffee and tea — for example, green tea versus black tea. 

When asked if the study controlled for smoking, Dr. Sewell said it didn’t but added that it would be interesting to explore its impact on cognition.

Dr. Sewell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day is linked to more rapid cognitive decline over time, results from a large study suggest.

Investigators examined the impact of different amounts of coffee and tea on fluid intelligence — a measure of cognitive functions including abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and logical thinking.

“It’s the old adage that too much of anything isn’t good. It’s all about balance, so moderate coffee consumption is okay but too much is probably not recommended,” said study investigator Kelsey R. Sewell, PhD, Advent Health Research Institute, Orlando, Florida. 

The findings of the study were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC).
 

One of the World’s Most Widely Consumed Beverages

Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages around the world. The beans contain a range of bioactive compounds, including caffeine, chlorogenic acid, and small amounts of vitamins and minerals.

Consistent evidence from observational and epidemiologic studies indicates that intake of both coffee and tea has beneficial effects on stroke, heart failure, cancers, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease.  

Several studies also suggest that coffee may reduce the risk for Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Sewell. However, there are limited longitudinal data on associations between coffee and tea intake and cognitive decline, particularly in distinct cognitive domains.

Dr. Sewell’s group previously published a study of cognitively unimpaired older adults that found greater coffee consumption was associated with slower cognitive decline and slower accumulation of brain beta-amyloid.

Their current study extends some of the prior findings and investigates the relationship between both coffee and tea intake and cognitive decline over time in a larger sample of older adults.

This new study included 8451 mostly female (60%) and White (97%) cognitively unimpaired adults older than 60 (mean age, 67.8 years) in the UK Biobank, a large-scale research resource containing in-depth, deidentified genetic and health information from half a million UK participants. Study subjects had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26, and about 26% were apolipoprotein epsilon 4 (APOE e4) gene carriers.

Researchers divided coffee and tea consumption into tertiles: high, moderate, and no consumption.

For daily coffee consumption, 18% reported drinking four or more cups (high consumption), 58% reported drinking one to three cups (moderate consumption), and 25% reported that they never drink coffee. For daily tea consumption, 47% reported drinking four or more cups (high consumption), 38% reported drinking one to three cups (moderate consumption), and 15% reported that they never drink tea.

The study assessed cognitive function at baseline and at least two additional patient visits. 

Researchers used linear mixed models to assess the relationships between coffee and tea intake and cognitive outcomes. The models adjusted for age, sex, Townsend deprivation index (reflecting socioeconomic status), ethnicity, APOE e4 status, and BMI.
 

Steeper Decline 

Compared with high coffee consumption (four or more cups daily), people who never consumed coffee (beta, 0.06; standard error [SE], 0.02; P = .005) and those with moderate consumption (beta, 0.07; SE, 0.02; P = < .001) had slower decline in fluid intelligence after an average of 8.83 years of follow-up.

“We can see that those with high coffee consumption showed the steepest decline in fluid intelligence across the follow up, compared to those with moderate coffee consumption and those never consuming coffee,” said Dr. Sewell, referring to illustrative graphs.

At the same time, “our data suggest that across this time period, moderate coffee consumption can serve as some kind of protective factor against cognitive decline,” she added.

For tea, there was a somewhat different pattern. People who never drank tea had a greater decline in fluid intelligence, compared with those who had moderate consumption (beta, 0.06; SE, 0.02; P = .0090) or high consumption (beta, 0.06; SE, 0.02; P = .003).

Because this is an observational study, “we still need randomized controlled trials to better understand the neuroprotective mechanism of coffee and tea compounds,” said Dr. Sewell.

Responding later to a query from a meeting delegate about how moderate coffee drinking could be protective, Dr. Sewell said there are probably “different levels of mechanisms,” including at the molecular level (possibly involving amyloid toxicity) and the behavioral level (possibly involving sleep patterns).

Dr. Sewell said that she hopes this line of investigation will lead to new avenues of research in preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease. 

“We hope that coffee and tea intake could contribute to the development of a safe and inexpensive strategy for delaying the onset and reducing the incidence for Alzheimer’s disease.”

A limitation of the study is possible recall bias, because coffee and tea consumption were self-reported. However, this may not be much of an issue because coffee and tea consumption “is usually quite a habitual behavior,” said Dr. Sewell.

The study also had no data on midlife coffee or tea consumption and did not compare the effect of different preparation methods or types of coffee and tea — for example, green tea versus black tea. 

When asked if the study controlled for smoking, Dr. Sewell said it didn’t but added that it would be interesting to explore its impact on cognition.

Dr. Sewell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day is linked to more rapid cognitive decline over time, results from a large study suggest.

Investigators examined the impact of different amounts of coffee and tea on fluid intelligence — a measure of cognitive functions including abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and logical thinking.

“It’s the old adage that too much of anything isn’t good. It’s all about balance, so moderate coffee consumption is okay but too much is probably not recommended,” said study investigator Kelsey R. Sewell, PhD, Advent Health Research Institute, Orlando, Florida. 

The findings of the study were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC).
 

One of the World’s Most Widely Consumed Beverages

Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages around the world. The beans contain a range of bioactive compounds, including caffeine, chlorogenic acid, and small amounts of vitamins and minerals.

Consistent evidence from observational and epidemiologic studies indicates that intake of both coffee and tea has beneficial effects on stroke, heart failure, cancers, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease.  

Several studies also suggest that coffee may reduce the risk for Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Sewell. However, there are limited longitudinal data on associations between coffee and tea intake and cognitive decline, particularly in distinct cognitive domains.

Dr. Sewell’s group previously published a study of cognitively unimpaired older adults that found greater coffee consumption was associated with slower cognitive decline and slower accumulation of brain beta-amyloid.

Their current study extends some of the prior findings and investigates the relationship between both coffee and tea intake and cognitive decline over time in a larger sample of older adults.

This new study included 8451 mostly female (60%) and White (97%) cognitively unimpaired adults older than 60 (mean age, 67.8 years) in the UK Biobank, a large-scale research resource containing in-depth, deidentified genetic and health information from half a million UK participants. Study subjects had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26, and about 26% were apolipoprotein epsilon 4 (APOE e4) gene carriers.

Researchers divided coffee and tea consumption into tertiles: high, moderate, and no consumption.

For daily coffee consumption, 18% reported drinking four or more cups (high consumption), 58% reported drinking one to three cups (moderate consumption), and 25% reported that they never drink coffee. For daily tea consumption, 47% reported drinking four or more cups (high consumption), 38% reported drinking one to three cups (moderate consumption), and 15% reported that they never drink tea.

The study assessed cognitive function at baseline and at least two additional patient visits. 

Researchers used linear mixed models to assess the relationships between coffee and tea intake and cognitive outcomes. The models adjusted for age, sex, Townsend deprivation index (reflecting socioeconomic status), ethnicity, APOE e4 status, and BMI.
 

Steeper Decline 

Compared with high coffee consumption (four or more cups daily), people who never consumed coffee (beta, 0.06; standard error [SE], 0.02; P = .005) and those with moderate consumption (beta, 0.07; SE, 0.02; P = < .001) had slower decline in fluid intelligence after an average of 8.83 years of follow-up.

“We can see that those with high coffee consumption showed the steepest decline in fluid intelligence across the follow up, compared to those with moderate coffee consumption and those never consuming coffee,” said Dr. Sewell, referring to illustrative graphs.

At the same time, “our data suggest that across this time period, moderate coffee consumption can serve as some kind of protective factor against cognitive decline,” she added.

For tea, there was a somewhat different pattern. People who never drank tea had a greater decline in fluid intelligence, compared with those who had moderate consumption (beta, 0.06; SE, 0.02; P = .0090) or high consumption (beta, 0.06; SE, 0.02; P = .003).

Because this is an observational study, “we still need randomized controlled trials to better understand the neuroprotective mechanism of coffee and tea compounds,” said Dr. Sewell.

Responding later to a query from a meeting delegate about how moderate coffee drinking could be protective, Dr. Sewell said there are probably “different levels of mechanisms,” including at the molecular level (possibly involving amyloid toxicity) and the behavioral level (possibly involving sleep patterns).

Dr. Sewell said that she hopes this line of investigation will lead to new avenues of research in preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease. 

“We hope that coffee and tea intake could contribute to the development of a safe and inexpensive strategy for delaying the onset and reducing the incidence for Alzheimer’s disease.”

A limitation of the study is possible recall bias, because coffee and tea consumption were self-reported. However, this may not be much of an issue because coffee and tea consumption “is usually quite a habitual behavior,” said Dr. Sewell.

The study also had no data on midlife coffee or tea consumption and did not compare the effect of different preparation methods or types of coffee and tea — for example, green tea versus black tea. 

When asked if the study controlled for smoking, Dr. Sewell said it didn’t but added that it would be interesting to explore its impact on cognition.

Dr. Sewell reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People with knee osteoarthritis and symptoms for less than 1 year benefit more from exercise therapy than do those with longer symptom duration, especially when long-term outcomes are considered.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using data from the OA Trial Bank, including 1769 participants (mean age, 65.1 years; 66% women) with knee osteoarthritis from 10 randomized controlled trials.
• The participants were categorized on the basis of their symptom duration: ≤ 1 year, > 1 and ≤ 2 years, and > 2 years.
• This study included an exercise therapy group comprising land- and water-based therapeutic exercise interventions and a control group comprising no exercise or sham treatment.
• The primary outcomes were self-reported pain and physical function, standardized to a 0-100 scale, at short-term (closest to 3 months) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pain and physical function associated with osteoarthritis improved in the exercise therapy group at both short- and long-term follow-ups compared with in the control group.
• Exercise therapy led to a greater improvement in short-term (mean difference [MD], −3.57; P = .028) and long-term (MD, −8.33; P < .001) pain among participants with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year.
• Similarly, those with a symptom duration ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years who underwent exercise therapy showed greater benefits in terms of short-term (P = .001) and long-term (P < .001) pain.
• Exercise therapy improved long-term physical function in those with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year (MD, −5.46; P = .005) and ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years (MD, −4.56; P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be encouraged as early as possible once symptoms emerge in the disease process to take advantage of its effects in potentially [slowing] disease progression within the suggested ‘window of opportunity,’ ” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, Erasmus MC Medical University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset of most studies included in the meta-analysis lacked information on the radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. The relatively short follow-up time hindered interpreting the impact of exercise on the long-term progression of osteoarthritis. The reliance on patient recall for recording symptom duration may have led to misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development supported this study. Three authors received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society for the program grant Center of Excellence “OA prevention and early treatment – OA Pearl.” One author declared receiving royalties for the UpToDate knee osteoarthritis clinical guidelines.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with knee osteoarthritis and symptoms for less than 1 year benefit more from exercise therapy than do those with longer symptom duration, especially when long-term outcomes are considered.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using data from the OA Trial Bank, including 1769 participants (mean age, 65.1 years; 66% women) with knee osteoarthritis from 10 randomized controlled trials.
• The participants were categorized on the basis of their symptom duration: ≤ 1 year, > 1 and ≤ 2 years, and > 2 years.
• This study included an exercise therapy group comprising land- and water-based therapeutic exercise interventions and a control group comprising no exercise or sham treatment.
• The primary outcomes were self-reported pain and physical function, standardized to a 0-100 scale, at short-term (closest to 3 months) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pain and physical function associated with osteoarthritis improved in the exercise therapy group at both short- and long-term follow-ups compared with in the control group.
• Exercise therapy led to a greater improvement in short-term (mean difference [MD], −3.57; P = .028) and long-term (MD, −8.33; P < .001) pain among participants with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year.
• Similarly, those with a symptom duration ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years who underwent exercise therapy showed greater benefits in terms of short-term (P = .001) and long-term (P < .001) pain.
• Exercise therapy improved long-term physical function in those with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year (MD, −5.46; P = .005) and ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years (MD, −4.56; P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be encouraged as early as possible once symptoms emerge in the disease process to take advantage of its effects in potentially [slowing] disease progression within the suggested ‘window of opportunity,’ ” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, Erasmus MC Medical University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset of most studies included in the meta-analysis lacked information on the radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. The relatively short follow-up time hindered interpreting the impact of exercise on the long-term progression of osteoarthritis. The reliance on patient recall for recording symptom duration may have led to misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development supported this study. Three authors received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society for the program grant Center of Excellence “OA prevention and early treatment – OA Pearl.” One author declared receiving royalties for the UpToDate knee osteoarthritis clinical guidelines.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with knee osteoarthritis and symptoms for less than 1 year benefit more from exercise therapy than do those with longer symptom duration, especially when long-term outcomes are considered.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using data from the OA Trial Bank, including 1769 participants (mean age, 65.1 years; 66% women) with knee osteoarthritis from 10 randomized controlled trials.
• The participants were categorized on the basis of their symptom duration: ≤ 1 year, > 1 and ≤ 2 years, and > 2 years.
• This study included an exercise therapy group comprising land- and water-based therapeutic exercise interventions and a control group comprising no exercise or sham treatment.
• The primary outcomes were self-reported pain and physical function, standardized to a 0-100 scale, at short-term (closest to 3 months) and long-term (closest to 12 months) follow-ups.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pain and physical function associated with osteoarthritis improved in the exercise therapy group at both short- and long-term follow-ups compared with in the control group.
• Exercise therapy led to a greater improvement in short-term (mean difference [MD], −3.57; P = .028) and long-term (MD, −8.33; P < .001) pain among participants with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year.
• Similarly, those with a symptom duration ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years who underwent exercise therapy showed greater benefits in terms of short-term (P = .001) and long-term (P < .001) pain.
• Exercise therapy improved long-term physical function in those with a symptom duration ≤ 1 year vs > 1 year (MD, −5.46; P = .005) and ≤ 2 years vs > 2 years (MD, −4.56; P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Exercise should be encouraged as early as possible once symptoms emerge in the disease process to take advantage of its effects in potentially [slowing] disease progression within the suggested ‘window of opportunity,’ ” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, Erasmus MC Medical University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset of most studies included in the meta-analysis lacked information on the radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. The relatively short follow-up time hindered interpreting the impact of exercise on the long-term progression of osteoarthritis. The reliance on patient recall for recording symptom duration may have led to misclassification.

DISCLOSURES:

The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development supported this study. Three authors received funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society for the program grant Center of Excellence “OA prevention and early treatment – OA Pearl.” One author declared receiving royalties for the UpToDate knee osteoarthritis clinical guidelines.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The lowest point in the nascent career of Neelendu Dey, MD, helped seal his fate as a physician-scientist.

He had just started his first year as a resident at University of California, San Francisco. One of his patients was a 30-year-old woman who was dying of metastatic colorectal cancer. “I was in my mid-20s interacting with an individual just a few years older than I am, going through one of the most terrible health outcomes one could imagine,” Dr. Dey said.

He remembers asking the patient what he could do for her, how he could make her feel more comfortable. “That feeling of helplessness, particularly as we think about young people developing cancer, it really stuck with me through the years,” he said.

Dr. Dey, a graduate of the AGA Future Leaders Program, is now a gastroenterologist and researcher at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle. In an interview, he talked about his dual role as a physician and scientist, and how those two interests are guiding his research in precancerous conditions of the colon.

Cases like that of the young woman with colon cancer “really help drive the urgency of the work we do, and the research questions we ask, as we try to move the ball forward and help folks at earlier stages,” he said.

Fred Hutch Cancer Center

Q: Why did you choose GI?

When you think about what sorts of chronic diseases really impact your quality of life, gut health is one of the chief contributors among various aspects of health. And that really appealed to me — the ability to take someone who is essentially handicapped by a series of illnesses and symptoms that derive from the GI tract and enable them to return to the person they want to be, to be productive in the way that they want to be, and have a rewarding life.

As I thought about how I wanted to contribute to the future of medicine, one of the ways in which I’ve always thought that I would do that is through research. When I considered the fields that really appealed to me, both from that clinical standpoint and research standpoint, GI was one that really stood out. There has been a lot of exciting research going on in GI. My lab currently studies the microbiome, and I feel like this is an area in which we can contribute.
 

Q: What role does digestive health play in overall health?

Obviously, the direct answer is gut health is so critical in something like nutritional intake. Some GI symptoms, if your gut health has gone awry, can really be detrimental in terms of quality of life. But one less obvious role that digestive health plays is its long-term effects. We’re starting to appreciate that gut health, the gut microbiome, and gut immune education are probably long-term players. Some experiences in early life might shape our immunity in ways that have consequences for us much later in life. Whether we get early life antibiotics, for example, may potentially contribute to colorectal cancer down the line. Thinking about the long-term players is more challenging, but it’s also an appealing opportunity as we think about how we can shape medicine moving forward.

Q: What practice challenges have you faced in your career?

First, being a physician-scientist. It’s challenging to be either a physician alone or to be a researcher alone. And trying to do both includes the challenges of both individual worlds. It just takes more time to get all the prerequisite training. And second, there are just challenges with getting the opportunities to contribute in the ways that you want — to get the research funding, to get the papers out, things like that.

Q: Tell me about the work you’ve been doing in your lab to develop microbiome-based strategies for preventing and treating cancer.

The microbiome presents several opportunities when it comes to cancer prevention. One is identifying markers of cancer risk, or of general good health down the line. Some of those biomarkers could — potentially — feed directly into personalized risk assessment and maybe even inform a future screening strategy. The second opportunity the microbiome presents is if we identify a microbe that influences your cancer risk, can we then understand and exploit, or utilize, that mechanism to mitigate cancer risk in the future? Our lab has done work looking at subspecies levels of microbes that track with health or cancer. We’ve done some work to identify what these subspecies groupings are and have identified some links to certain precancerous changes in the colon. We think that there’s an opportunity here for future interventions.

Q: Have you published other papers?

We recently published another paper describing how some microbes can interact with a tumor suppressor gene and are influenced in a sex-biased manner to drive tumorigenesis in a mouse model. We think, based on what we’re seeing in human data, that there may be some relationships and we’re exploring that now as well. 

Q: What is your vision for the future in GI, and in your career?

The vision that I have is to create clinical tools that can expand our reach and our effectiveness and cancer prevention. I think that there are opportunities for leveraging microbiome research to accomplish this. And one outcome I could imagine is leveraging some of these insights to expand noninvasive screening at even earlier ages than we do now. I mean, we just dialed back the recommended age for colonoscopy for average risk individuals to 45. But I could envision a future in which noninvasive screening starts earlier, in which the first stool-based tests that we deploy to assess personalized risk are used in the pediatric clinic.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite city in the United States besides the one you live in?

St. Louis

Cat or dog person?

Both

If you weren’t a GI, what would you be?

Musician

Best place you went on vacation?

Borneo

Favorite sport?

Soccer

Favorite ice cream?

Cashew-based salted caramel

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Sweet Child of Mine

Favorite movie or TV show?

25th Hour or Shawshank Redemption

Optimist or Pessimist?

Optimist

The lowest point in the nascent career of Neelendu Dey, MD, helped seal his fate as a physician-scientist.

He had just started his first year as a resident at University of California, San Francisco. One of his patients was a 30-year-old woman who was dying of metastatic colorectal cancer. “I was in my mid-20s interacting with an individual just a few years older than I am, going through one of the most terrible health outcomes one could imagine,” Dr. Dey said.

He remembers asking the patient what he could do for her, how he could make her feel more comfortable. “That feeling of helplessness, particularly as we think about young people developing cancer, it really stuck with me through the years,” he said.

Dr. Dey, a graduate of the AGA Future Leaders Program, is now a gastroenterologist and researcher at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle. In an interview, he talked about his dual role as a physician and scientist, and how those two interests are guiding his research in precancerous conditions of the colon.

Cases like that of the young woman with colon cancer “really help drive the urgency of the work we do, and the research questions we ask, as we try to move the ball forward and help folks at earlier stages,” he said.

Fred Hutch Cancer Center

Q: Why did you choose GI?

When you think about what sorts of chronic diseases really impact your quality of life, gut health is one of the chief contributors among various aspects of health. And that really appealed to me — the ability to take someone who is essentially handicapped by a series of illnesses and symptoms that derive from the GI tract and enable them to return to the person they want to be, to be productive in the way that they want to be, and have a rewarding life.

As I thought about how I wanted to contribute to the future of medicine, one of the ways in which I’ve always thought that I would do that is through research. When I considered the fields that really appealed to me, both from that clinical standpoint and research standpoint, GI was one that really stood out. There has been a lot of exciting research going on in GI. My lab currently studies the microbiome, and I feel like this is an area in which we can contribute.
 

Q: What role does digestive health play in overall health?

Obviously, the direct answer is gut health is so critical in something like nutritional intake. Some GI symptoms, if your gut health has gone awry, can really be detrimental in terms of quality of life. But one less obvious role that digestive health plays is its long-term effects. We’re starting to appreciate that gut health, the gut microbiome, and gut immune education are probably long-term players. Some experiences in early life might shape our immunity in ways that have consequences for us much later in life. Whether we get early life antibiotics, for example, may potentially contribute to colorectal cancer down the line. Thinking about the long-term players is more challenging, but it’s also an appealing opportunity as we think about how we can shape medicine moving forward.

Q: What practice challenges have you faced in your career?

First, being a physician-scientist. It’s challenging to be either a physician alone or to be a researcher alone. And trying to do both includes the challenges of both individual worlds. It just takes more time to get all the prerequisite training. And second, there are just challenges with getting the opportunities to contribute in the ways that you want — to get the research funding, to get the papers out, things like that.

Q: Tell me about the work you’ve been doing in your lab to develop microbiome-based strategies for preventing and treating cancer.

The microbiome presents several opportunities when it comes to cancer prevention. One is identifying markers of cancer risk, or of general good health down the line. Some of those biomarkers could — potentially — feed directly into personalized risk assessment and maybe even inform a future screening strategy. The second opportunity the microbiome presents is if we identify a microbe that influences your cancer risk, can we then understand and exploit, or utilize, that mechanism to mitigate cancer risk in the future? Our lab has done work looking at subspecies levels of microbes that track with health or cancer. We’ve done some work to identify what these subspecies groupings are and have identified some links to certain precancerous changes in the colon. We think that there’s an opportunity here for future interventions.

Q: Have you published other papers?

We recently published another paper describing how some microbes can interact with a tumor suppressor gene and are influenced in a sex-biased manner to drive tumorigenesis in a mouse model. We think, based on what we’re seeing in human data, that there may be some relationships and we’re exploring that now as well. 

Q: What is your vision for the future in GI, and in your career?

The vision that I have is to create clinical tools that can expand our reach and our effectiveness and cancer prevention. I think that there are opportunities for leveraging microbiome research to accomplish this. And one outcome I could imagine is leveraging some of these insights to expand noninvasive screening at even earlier ages than we do now. I mean, we just dialed back the recommended age for colonoscopy for average risk individuals to 45. But I could envision a future in which noninvasive screening starts earlier, in which the first stool-based tests that we deploy to assess personalized risk are used in the pediatric clinic.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite city in the United States besides the one you live in?

St. Louis

Cat or dog person?

Both

If you weren’t a GI, what would you be?

Musician

Best place you went on vacation?

Borneo

Favorite sport?

Soccer

Favorite ice cream?

Cashew-based salted caramel

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Sweet Child of Mine

Favorite movie or TV show?

25th Hour or Shawshank Redemption

Optimist or Pessimist?

Optimist

The lowest point in the nascent career of Neelendu Dey, MD, helped seal his fate as a physician-scientist.

He had just started his first year as a resident at University of California, San Francisco. One of his patients was a 30-year-old woman who was dying of metastatic colorectal cancer. “I was in my mid-20s interacting with an individual just a few years older than I am, going through one of the most terrible health outcomes one could imagine,” Dr. Dey said.

He remembers asking the patient what he could do for her, how he could make her feel more comfortable. “That feeling of helplessness, particularly as we think about young people developing cancer, it really stuck with me through the years,” he said.

Dr. Dey, a graduate of the AGA Future Leaders Program, is now a gastroenterologist and researcher at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle. In an interview, he talked about his dual role as a physician and scientist, and how those two interests are guiding his research in precancerous conditions of the colon.

Cases like that of the young woman with colon cancer “really help drive the urgency of the work we do, and the research questions we ask, as we try to move the ball forward and help folks at earlier stages,” he said.

Fred Hutch Cancer Center

Q: Why did you choose GI?

When you think about what sorts of chronic diseases really impact your quality of life, gut health is one of the chief contributors among various aspects of health. And that really appealed to me — the ability to take someone who is essentially handicapped by a series of illnesses and symptoms that derive from the GI tract and enable them to return to the person they want to be, to be productive in the way that they want to be, and have a rewarding life.

As I thought about how I wanted to contribute to the future of medicine, one of the ways in which I’ve always thought that I would do that is through research. When I considered the fields that really appealed to me, both from that clinical standpoint and research standpoint, GI was one that really stood out. There has been a lot of exciting research going on in GI. My lab currently studies the microbiome, and I feel like this is an area in which we can contribute.
 

Q: What role does digestive health play in overall health?

Obviously, the direct answer is gut health is so critical in something like nutritional intake. Some GI symptoms, if your gut health has gone awry, can really be detrimental in terms of quality of life. But one less obvious role that digestive health plays is its long-term effects. We’re starting to appreciate that gut health, the gut microbiome, and gut immune education are probably long-term players. Some experiences in early life might shape our immunity in ways that have consequences for us much later in life. Whether we get early life antibiotics, for example, may potentially contribute to colorectal cancer down the line. Thinking about the long-term players is more challenging, but it’s also an appealing opportunity as we think about how we can shape medicine moving forward.

Q: What practice challenges have you faced in your career?

First, being a physician-scientist. It’s challenging to be either a physician alone or to be a researcher alone. And trying to do both includes the challenges of both individual worlds. It just takes more time to get all the prerequisite training. And second, there are just challenges with getting the opportunities to contribute in the ways that you want — to get the research funding, to get the papers out, things like that.

Q: Tell me about the work you’ve been doing in your lab to develop microbiome-based strategies for preventing and treating cancer.

The microbiome presents several opportunities when it comes to cancer prevention. One is identifying markers of cancer risk, or of general good health down the line. Some of those biomarkers could — potentially — feed directly into personalized risk assessment and maybe even inform a future screening strategy. The second opportunity the microbiome presents is if we identify a microbe that influences your cancer risk, can we then understand and exploit, or utilize, that mechanism to mitigate cancer risk in the future? Our lab has done work looking at subspecies levels of microbes that track with health or cancer. We’ve done some work to identify what these subspecies groupings are and have identified some links to certain precancerous changes in the colon. We think that there’s an opportunity here for future interventions.

Q: Have you published other papers?

We recently published another paper describing how some microbes can interact with a tumor suppressor gene and are influenced in a sex-biased manner to drive tumorigenesis in a mouse model. We think, based on what we’re seeing in human data, that there may be some relationships and we’re exploring that now as well. 

Q: What is your vision for the future in GI, and in your career?

The vision that I have is to create clinical tools that can expand our reach and our effectiveness and cancer prevention. I think that there are opportunities for leveraging microbiome research to accomplish this. And one outcome I could imagine is leveraging some of these insights to expand noninvasive screening at even earlier ages than we do now. I mean, we just dialed back the recommended age for colonoscopy for average risk individuals to 45. But I could envision a future in which noninvasive screening starts earlier, in which the first stool-based tests that we deploy to assess personalized risk are used in the pediatric clinic.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite city in the United States besides the one you live in?

St. Louis

Cat or dog person?

Both

If you weren’t a GI, what would you be?

Musician

Best place you went on vacation?

Borneo

Favorite sport?

Soccer

Favorite ice cream?

Cashew-based salted caramel

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Sweet Child of Mine

Favorite movie or TV show?

25th Hour or Shawshank Redemption

Optimist or Pessimist?

Optimist

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Recognizing the increasing importance of digital pathology and its potential impact to transform federal health care, government, military, and university digital pathology specialists convened in May 2023 to share expertise to advance the use of digital pathology in federal health care. 

The seminar was hosted by the University of Pittsburgh and led by Ronald Poropatich, MD, Director of the Center for Military Medicine Research, Health Sciences, and Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Douglas Hartman, MD, Vice Chair of Pathology Informatics, Associate Director of the Center for AI Innovation in Medical Imaging, and Professor of Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh/University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).

Invitees included senior federal government pathologists, laboratory scientists, IT leaders, and stakeholders from the VA, DoD, HHS (NIH, CDC, IHS, FDA) and other federal agencies. The speakers for the conference were CDR Roger Boodoo, MD, Chief of Innovation, Defense Health Agency; Ryan Collins, MD, Pathologist, Williamsport Pathology Association; Pat Flanders, Chief Information Officer, J6, Defense Health Agency; Matthew Hanna, MD, Director, Digital Pathology Informatics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Stephanie Harmon, PhD, Staff Scientist, NIH NCI, Imaging/Data Scientist in Molecular Imaging; Douglas Hartman, MD, Vice Chair of Pathology Informatics, University of Pittsburgh; Stephen Hewitt, MD, PhD, Head, Experimental Pathology Laboratory, NIH NCI, Center for Cancer Research; Jason Hipp, MD, PhD, Chief Digital Innovation Officer, Mayo Collaborate Services,  Mayo Clinic; Brian Lein, MD, Assistant Director, Healthcare Administration, Defense Health Agency; Col Mark Lyman, MD, Pathology Consultant to the US Air Force Surgeon General; COL Joel Moncur, MD, Director, Joint Pathology Center; Ronald Poropatich, MD, Director of the Center for Military Medicine Research, Health Sciences; Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; David Shulkin, MD, Ninth U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Eliot Siegel, MD, Chief of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System; Professor and Vice Chair, University of Maryland School of Medicine; CDR Jenny Smith, DO, Pathologist, US Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; Shandong Wu, PhD, Associate Professor, Departments of Radiology, Biomedical Informatics, and Bioengineering, Director of Center for Artificial Intelligence Innovation in Medical Imaging, University of Pittsburgh; LCDR Victoria Mahar MD, Pathologist, US Army. 

Throughout the 1.5-day meeting, topics such as the integration of systems, the value of single vendor solutions vs multiple vendors, and the interconnectedness of radiology and pathology in health care were discussed. The speakers addressed the challenges of adopting digital pathology, including workflow improvement, quality control, and the generalizability of algorithms. The importance of collaboration, leadership, data analytics, compliance with clinical practice guidelines, and research and development efforts were stressed. The increasingly important role of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital pathology, its applications, and its benefits were also highlighted. Continuing education credits were offered to participants. 

Overall, the meeting provided valuable insights into the advancements, challenges, and potential of digital pathology, AI, and technology integration in the federal health care ecosystem. However, this cannot be achieved without leadership from and close collaboration between key industry, academic, and government stakeholders.

Uses of Digital Pathology

Digital pathology refers to the practice of digitizing glass slides containing tissue samples and using digital imaging technology to analyze and interpret them. It involves capturing high-resolution images of microscopic slides and storing them in a digital format. These digitized images can be accessed and analyzed using computer-based tools and software.

While traditional pathology involves examining tissue samples under a microscope to make diagnoses and provide insights into diseases and conditions, digital pathology uses digital scanners that capture all relevant tissue on the glass slide at high magnification. This process generates a high-fidelity digital representation of the tissue sample that can be navigated akin to how glass slides are reviewed on a brightfield microscope in current practice (eg, panning, zooming, etc). Microscopic review of patient specimens in pathology allows for identifying patterns and markers that may not be easily detectable with manual examination alone. 

The digitized slides can be stored in a database or a slide management system, allowing pathologists and other healthcare professionals to access and review them remotely, thus creating the potential to improve collaboration among pathologists, facilitate second opinions, and enable easier access to archived slides for research purposes. 

Potential Benefits

Digital pathology also opens the door to advanced image analysis techniques, such as computer-aided diagnosis, machine learning, and AI algorithms, with the potential for the following outcomes and benefits:

• Improved accuracy AI algorithms can analyze large volumes of digital pathology data with great precision, reducing the chances of human error and subjective interpretation. This can lead to more accurate and consistent diagnoses, especially in challenging cases where subtle patterns or features may be difficult to detect.
• Automated detection and classification AI algorithms can be trained to detect and classify specific features or abnormalities in digital pathology images. For example, AI models can identify cancerous cells, tissue patterns associated with different diseases, or specific biomarkers. This can assist pathologists in diagnosing diseases more accurately and efficiently.
• Quantitative analysis AI can analyze large quantities of digital pathology data and extract quantitative measurements. For instance, it can calculate the percentage of tumor cells in a sample, assess the density of immune cells, or measure the extent of tissue damage. These objective measurements can aid in prognosis prediction and treatment planning.
• Image segmentation AI algorithms can segment digital pathology images into different regions or structures, such as nuclei, cytoplasm, or blood vessels. This segmentation allows for precise analysis and extraction of features for further study. It can also facilitate the identification of specific cell types or tissue components.
• Image enhancement AI techniques can enhance the quality of digital pathology images by improving clarity and reducing noise or artifacts. This can help pathologists visualize and interpret slides more effectively, especially in challenging cases with low-quality or complex images.
• Decision support systems AI-powered decision support systems can assist pathologists by providing recommendations or second opinions based on the analysis of digital pathology data. These systems can offer insights, suggest potential diagnoses, or provide relevant research references, augmenting the pathologist’s expertise and improving diagnostic accuracy.
• Collaboration and second opinions Digital pathology, combined with AI, facilitates remote access to digitized slides, enabling pathologists to seek second opinions or collaborate with experts from around the world. This can enhance the quality of diagnoses by leveraging the collective expertise of pathologists and fostering knowledge sharing.
• Education and training AI algorithms can be utilized in virtual microscopy platforms to create interactive and educational experiences. Pathology residents and students can learn from annotated cases, receive real-time feedback, and develop their skills in a digital environment.
• Research and discovery AI can assist in identifying patterns, correlations, and novel biomarkers in digital pathology data. By analyzing large datasets, AI algorithms can help uncover new insights, contribute to research advancements, and aid in the development of personalized medicine approaches.
• Predictive modeling AI can analyze vast amounts of digital pathology data, patient records, and outcomes to develop predictive models. These models can estimate disease progression, treatment response, or patient survival rates based on various factors. They can contribute to personalized medicine by assisting in treatment decisions and prognosis assessment.

It is important to note that while AI has shown promising results, it is not intended to replace human pathologists but to augment their capabilities. Overall, the combination of AI technology with the expertise of pathologists can lead to improved diagnosis, better patient care, and more efficient workflows in digital pathology.
 

Recognizing the increasing importance of digital pathology and its potential impact to transform federal health care, government, military, and university digital pathology specialists convened in May 2023 to share expertise to advance the use of digital pathology in federal health care. 

The seminar was hosted by the University of Pittsburgh and led by Ronald Poropatich, MD, Director of the Center for Military Medicine Research, Health Sciences, and Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Douglas Hartman, MD, Vice Chair of Pathology Informatics, Associate Director of the Center for AI Innovation in Medical Imaging, and Professor of Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh/University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).

Invitees included senior federal government pathologists, laboratory scientists, IT leaders, and stakeholders from the VA, DoD, HHS (NIH, CDC, IHS, FDA) and other federal agencies. The speakers for the conference were CDR Roger Boodoo, MD, Chief of Innovation, Defense Health Agency; Ryan Collins, MD, Pathologist, Williamsport Pathology Association; Pat Flanders, Chief Information Officer, J6, Defense Health Agency; Matthew Hanna, MD, Director, Digital Pathology Informatics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Stephanie Harmon, PhD, Staff Scientist, NIH NCI, Imaging/Data Scientist in Molecular Imaging; Douglas Hartman, MD, Vice Chair of Pathology Informatics, University of Pittsburgh; Stephen Hewitt, MD, PhD, Head, Experimental Pathology Laboratory, NIH NCI, Center for Cancer Research; Jason Hipp, MD, PhD, Chief Digital Innovation Officer, Mayo Collaborate Services,  Mayo Clinic; Brian Lein, MD, Assistant Director, Healthcare Administration, Defense Health Agency; Col Mark Lyman, MD, Pathology Consultant to the US Air Force Surgeon General; COL Joel Moncur, MD, Director, Joint Pathology Center; Ronald Poropatich, MD, Director of the Center for Military Medicine Research, Health Sciences; Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; David Shulkin, MD, Ninth U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Eliot Siegel, MD, Chief of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System; Professor and Vice Chair, University of Maryland School of Medicine; CDR Jenny Smith, DO, Pathologist, US Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; Shandong Wu, PhD, Associate Professor, Departments of Radiology, Biomedical Informatics, and Bioengineering, Director of Center for Artificial Intelligence Innovation in Medical Imaging, University of Pittsburgh; LCDR Victoria Mahar MD, Pathologist, US Army. 

Throughout the 1.5-day meeting, topics such as the integration of systems, the value of single vendor solutions vs multiple vendors, and the interconnectedness of radiology and pathology in health care were discussed. The speakers addressed the challenges of adopting digital pathology, including workflow improvement, quality control, and the generalizability of algorithms. The importance of collaboration, leadership, data analytics, compliance with clinical practice guidelines, and research and development efforts were stressed. The increasingly important role of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital pathology, its applications, and its benefits were also highlighted. Continuing education credits were offered to participants. 

Overall, the meeting provided valuable insights into the advancements, challenges, and potential of digital pathology, AI, and technology integration in the federal health care ecosystem. However, this cannot be achieved without leadership from and close collaboration between key industry, academic, and government stakeholders.

Uses of Digital Pathology

Digital pathology refers to the practice of digitizing glass slides containing tissue samples and using digital imaging technology to analyze and interpret them. It involves capturing high-resolution images of microscopic slides and storing them in a digital format. These digitized images can be accessed and analyzed using computer-based tools and software.

While traditional pathology involves examining tissue samples under a microscope to make diagnoses and provide insights into diseases and conditions, digital pathology uses digital scanners that capture all relevant tissue on the glass slide at high magnification. This process generates a high-fidelity digital representation of the tissue sample that can be navigated akin to how glass slides are reviewed on a brightfield microscope in current practice (eg, panning, zooming, etc). Microscopic review of patient specimens in pathology allows for identifying patterns and markers that may not be easily detectable with manual examination alone. 

The digitized slides can be stored in a database or a slide management system, allowing pathologists and other healthcare professionals to access and review them remotely, thus creating the potential to improve collaboration among pathologists, facilitate second opinions, and enable easier access to archived slides for research purposes. 

Potential Benefits

Digital pathology also opens the door to advanced image analysis techniques, such as computer-aided diagnosis, machine learning, and AI algorithms, with the potential for the following outcomes and benefits:

• Improved accuracy AI algorithms can analyze large volumes of digital pathology data with great precision, reducing the chances of human error and subjective interpretation. This can lead to more accurate and consistent diagnoses, especially in challenging cases where subtle patterns or features may be difficult to detect.
• Automated detection and classification AI algorithms can be trained to detect and classify specific features or abnormalities in digital pathology images. For example, AI models can identify cancerous cells, tissue patterns associated with different diseases, or specific biomarkers. This can assist pathologists in diagnosing diseases more accurately and efficiently.
• Quantitative analysis AI can analyze large quantities of digital pathology data and extract quantitative measurements. For instance, it can calculate the percentage of tumor cells in a sample, assess the density of immune cells, or measure the extent of tissue damage. These objective measurements can aid in prognosis prediction and treatment planning.
• Image segmentation AI algorithms can segment digital pathology images into different regions or structures, such as nuclei, cytoplasm, or blood vessels. This segmentation allows for precise analysis and extraction of features for further study. It can also facilitate the identification of specific cell types or tissue components.
• Image enhancement AI techniques can enhance the quality of digital pathology images by improving clarity and reducing noise or artifacts. This can help pathologists visualize and interpret slides more effectively, especially in challenging cases with low-quality or complex images.
• Decision support systems AI-powered decision support systems can assist pathologists by providing recommendations or second opinions based on the analysis of digital pathology data. These systems can offer insights, suggest potential diagnoses, or provide relevant research references, augmenting the pathologist’s expertise and improving diagnostic accuracy.
• Collaboration and second opinions Digital pathology, combined with AI, facilitates remote access to digitized slides, enabling pathologists to seek second opinions or collaborate with experts from around the world. This can enhance the quality of diagnoses by leveraging the collective expertise of pathologists and fostering knowledge sharing.
• Education and training AI algorithms can be utilized in virtual microscopy platforms to create interactive and educational experiences. Pathology residents and students can learn from annotated cases, receive real-time feedback, and develop their skills in a digital environment.
• Research and discovery AI can assist in identifying patterns, correlations, and novel biomarkers in digital pathology data. By analyzing large datasets, AI algorithms can help uncover new insights, contribute to research advancements, and aid in the development of personalized medicine approaches.
• Predictive modeling AI can analyze vast amounts of digital pathology data, patient records, and outcomes to develop predictive models. These models can estimate disease progression, treatment response, or patient survival rates based on various factors. They can contribute to personalized medicine by assisting in treatment decisions and prognosis assessment.

It is important to note that while AI has shown promising results, it is not intended to replace human pathologists but to augment their capabilities. Overall, the combination of AI technology with the expertise of pathologists can lead to improved diagnosis, better patient care, and more efficient workflows in digital pathology.
 

Recognizing the increasing importance of digital pathology and its potential impact to transform federal health care, government, military, and university digital pathology specialists convened in May 2023 to share expertise to advance the use of digital pathology in federal health care. 

The seminar was hosted by the University of Pittsburgh and led by Ronald Poropatich, MD, Director of the Center for Military Medicine Research, Health Sciences, and Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Douglas Hartman, MD, Vice Chair of Pathology Informatics, Associate Director of the Center for AI Innovation in Medical Imaging, and Professor of Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh/University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).

Invitees included senior federal government pathologists, laboratory scientists, IT leaders, and stakeholders from the VA, DoD, HHS (NIH, CDC, IHS, FDA) and other federal agencies. The speakers for the conference were CDR Roger Boodoo, MD, Chief of Innovation, Defense Health Agency; Ryan Collins, MD, Pathologist, Williamsport Pathology Association; Pat Flanders, Chief Information Officer, J6, Defense Health Agency; Matthew Hanna, MD, Director, Digital Pathology Informatics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Stephanie Harmon, PhD, Staff Scientist, NIH NCI, Imaging/Data Scientist in Molecular Imaging; Douglas Hartman, MD, Vice Chair of Pathology Informatics, University of Pittsburgh; Stephen Hewitt, MD, PhD, Head, Experimental Pathology Laboratory, NIH NCI, Center for Cancer Research; Jason Hipp, MD, PhD, Chief Digital Innovation Officer, Mayo Collaborate Services,  Mayo Clinic; Brian Lein, MD, Assistant Director, Healthcare Administration, Defense Health Agency; Col Mark Lyman, MD, Pathology Consultant to the US Air Force Surgeon General; COL Joel Moncur, MD, Director, Joint Pathology Center; Ronald Poropatich, MD, Director of the Center for Military Medicine Research, Health Sciences; Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh; David Shulkin, MD, Ninth U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Eliot Siegel, MD, Chief of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Veterans Affairs Maryland Healthcare System; Professor and Vice Chair, University of Maryland School of Medicine; CDR Jenny Smith, DO, Pathologist, US Naval Medical Center Portsmouth; Shandong Wu, PhD, Associate Professor, Departments of Radiology, Biomedical Informatics, and Bioengineering, Director of Center for Artificial Intelligence Innovation in Medical Imaging, University of Pittsburgh; LCDR Victoria Mahar MD, Pathologist, US Army. 

Throughout the 1.5-day meeting, topics such as the integration of systems, the value of single vendor solutions vs multiple vendors, and the interconnectedness of radiology and pathology in health care were discussed. The speakers addressed the challenges of adopting digital pathology, including workflow improvement, quality control, and the generalizability of algorithms. The importance of collaboration, leadership, data analytics, compliance with clinical practice guidelines, and research and development efforts were stressed. The increasingly important role of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital pathology, its applications, and its benefits were also highlighted. Continuing education credits were offered to participants. 

Overall, the meeting provided valuable insights into the advancements, challenges, and potential of digital pathology, AI, and technology integration in the federal health care ecosystem. However, this cannot be achieved without leadership from and close collaboration between key industry, academic, and government stakeholders.

Uses of Digital Pathology

Digital pathology refers to the practice of digitizing glass slides containing tissue samples and using digital imaging technology to analyze and interpret them. It involves capturing high-resolution images of microscopic slides and storing them in a digital format. These digitized images can be accessed and analyzed using computer-based tools and software.

While traditional pathology involves examining tissue samples under a microscope to make diagnoses and provide insights into diseases and conditions, digital pathology uses digital scanners that capture all relevant tissue on the glass slide at high magnification. This process generates a high-fidelity digital representation of the tissue sample that can be navigated akin to how glass slides are reviewed on a brightfield microscope in current practice (eg, panning, zooming, etc). Microscopic review of patient specimens in pathology allows for identifying patterns and markers that may not be easily detectable with manual examination alone. 

The digitized slides can be stored in a database or a slide management system, allowing pathologists and other healthcare professionals to access and review them remotely, thus creating the potential to improve collaboration among pathologists, facilitate second opinions, and enable easier access to archived slides for research purposes. 

Potential Benefits

Digital pathology also opens the door to advanced image analysis techniques, such as computer-aided diagnosis, machine learning, and AI algorithms, with the potential for the following outcomes and benefits:

• Improved accuracy AI algorithms can analyze large volumes of digital pathology data with great precision, reducing the chances of human error and subjective interpretation. This can lead to more accurate and consistent diagnoses, especially in challenging cases where subtle patterns or features may be difficult to detect.
• Automated detection and classification AI algorithms can be trained to detect and classify specific features or abnormalities in digital pathology images. For example, AI models can identify cancerous cells, tissue patterns associated with different diseases, or specific biomarkers. This can assist pathologists in diagnosing diseases more accurately and efficiently.
• Quantitative analysis AI can analyze large quantities of digital pathology data and extract quantitative measurements. For instance, it can calculate the percentage of tumor cells in a sample, assess the density of immune cells, or measure the extent of tissue damage. These objective measurements can aid in prognosis prediction and treatment planning.
• Image segmentation AI algorithms can segment digital pathology images into different regions or structures, such as nuclei, cytoplasm, or blood vessels. This segmentation allows for precise analysis and extraction of features for further study. It can also facilitate the identification of specific cell types or tissue components.
• Image enhancement AI techniques can enhance the quality of digital pathology images by improving clarity and reducing noise or artifacts. This can help pathologists visualize and interpret slides more effectively, especially in challenging cases with low-quality or complex images.
• Decision support systems AI-powered decision support systems can assist pathologists by providing recommendations or second opinions based on the analysis of digital pathology data. These systems can offer insights, suggest potential diagnoses, or provide relevant research references, augmenting the pathologist’s expertise and improving diagnostic accuracy.
• Collaboration and second opinions Digital pathology, combined with AI, facilitates remote access to digitized slides, enabling pathologists to seek second opinions or collaborate with experts from around the world. This can enhance the quality of diagnoses by leveraging the collective expertise of pathologists and fostering knowledge sharing.
• Education and training AI algorithms can be utilized in virtual microscopy platforms to create interactive and educational experiences. Pathology residents and students can learn from annotated cases, receive real-time feedback, and develop their skills in a digital environment.
• Research and discovery AI can assist in identifying patterns, correlations, and novel biomarkers in digital pathology data. By analyzing large datasets, AI algorithms can help uncover new insights, contribute to research advancements, and aid in the development of personalized medicine approaches.
• Predictive modeling AI can analyze vast amounts of digital pathology data, patient records, and outcomes to develop predictive models. These models can estimate disease progression, treatment response, or patient survival rates based on various factors. They can contribute to personalized medicine by assisting in treatment decisions and prognosis assessment.

It is important to note that while AI has shown promising results, it is not intended to replace human pathologists but to augment their capabilities. Overall, the combination of AI technology with the expertise of pathologists can lead to improved diagnosis, better patient care, and more efficient workflows in digital pathology.
 

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The escalating costs of medications and the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country have drawn criticism from governments, regulators, and the media. Federal and state governments are exploring various strategies to mitigate this issue, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for drug price negotiations and the establishment of state Pharmaceutical Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs). However, it’s uncertain whether these measures will effectively reduce patients’ medication expenses, given the tendency of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor more expensive drugs on their formularies and the implementation challenges faced by PDABs.

The question then arises: How can we promptly assist patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions, in affording their healthcare? Many of these patients are enrolled in high-deductible plans and struggle to cover all their medical and pharmacy costs.

A significant obstacle to healthcare affordability emerged in 2018 with the introduction of Copay Accumulator Programs by PBMs. These programs prevent patients from applying manufacturer copay cards toward their deductible and maximum out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The impact of these policies has been devastating, leading to decreased adherence to medications and delayed necessary medical procedures, such as colonoscopies. Copay accumulators do nothing to address the high cost of medical care. They merely shift the burden from insurance companies to patients.

There is a direct solution to help patients, particularly those burdened with high pharmacy bills, afford their medical care. It would be that all payments from patients, including manufacturer copay cards, count toward their deductible and maximum OOP costs. This should apply regardless of whether the insurance plan is fully funded or a self-insured employer plan. This would be an immediate step toward making healthcare more affordable for patients.
 

Copay Accumulator Programs

How did these detrimental policies, which have been proven to harm patients, originate? It’s interesting that health insurance policies for federal employees do not allow these programs and yet the federal government has done little to protect its citizens from these egregious policies. More on that later.

In 2018, insurance companies and PBMs conceived an idea to introduce what they called copay accumulator adjustment programs. These programs would prevent the use of manufacturer copay cards from counting toward patient deductibles or OOP maximums. They justified this by arguing that manufacturer copay cards encouraged patients to opt for higher-priced brand drugs when lower-cost generics were available.

However, data from IQVIA contradicts this claim. An analysis of copay card usage from 2013 to 2017 revealed that a mere 0.4% of these cards were used for brand-name drugs that had already lost their exclusivity. This indicates that the vast majority of copay cards were not being used to purchase more expensive brand-name drugs when cheaper, generic alternatives were available.

Another argument put forth by one of the large PBMs was that patients with high deductibles don’t have enough “skin in the game” due to their low premiums, and therefore don’t deserve to have their deductible covered by a copay card. This raises the question, “Does a patient with hemophilia or systemic lupus who can’t afford a low deductible plan not have ‘skin in the game’? Is that a fair assessment?” It’s disconcerting to see a multibillion-dollar company dictating who deserves to have their deductible covered. These policies clearly disproportionately harm patients with chronic illnesses, especially those with high deductibles. As a result, many organizations have labeled these policies as discriminatory.

Following the implementation of accumulator programs in 2018 and 2019, many patients were unaware that their copay cards weren’t contributing toward their deductibles. They were taken aback when specialty pharmacies informed them of owing substantial amounts because of unmet deductibles. Consequently, patients discontinued their medications, leading to disease progression and increased costs. The only downside for health insurers and PBMs was the negative publicity associated with patients losing medication access.
 

Maximizer Programs

By the end of 2019, the three major PBMs had devised a strategy to keep patients on their medication throughout the year, without counting copay cards toward the deductible, and found a way to profit more from these cards, sometimes quadrupling their value. This was the birth of the maximizer programs.

Maximizers exploit a “loophole” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA defines Essential Healthcare Benefits (EHB); anything not listed as an EHB is deemed “non-essential.” As a result, neither personal payments nor copay cards count toward deductibles or OOP maximums. Patients were informed that neither their own money nor manufacturer copay cards would count toward their deductible/OOP max.

One of my patients was warned that without enrolling in the maximizer program through SaveOnSP (owned by Express Scripts), she would bear the full cost of the drug, and nothing would count toward her OOP max. Frightened, she enrolled and surrendered her manufacturer copay card to SaveOnSP. Maximizers pocket the maximum value of the copay card, even if it exceeds the insurance plan’s yearly cost share by threefold or more. To do this legally, PBMs increase the patient’s original cost share amount during the plan year to match the value of the manufacturer copay card.
 

Combating These Programs

Nineteen states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have outlawed copay accumulators in health plans under state jurisdiction. I personally testified in Louisiana, leading to a ban in our state. CSRO’s award-winning map tool can show if your state has passed the ban on copay accumulator programs. However, many states have not passed bans on copay accumulators and self-insured employer groups, which fall under the Department of Labor and not state regulation, are still unaffected. There is also proposed federal legislation, the “Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act,” that would prohibit the use of copay accumulators in exchange plans. Despite having bipartisan support, it is having a hard time getting across the finish line in Congress.

In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule prohibiting accumulator programs in all plans if the product was a brand name without a generic alternative. Unfortunately, this rule was rescinded in 2021, allowing copay accumulators even if a lower-cost generic was available.

In a positive turn of events, the US District Court of the District of Columbia overturned the 2021 rule in late 2023, reinstating the 2020 ban on copay accumulators. However, HHS has yet to enforce this ban.
 

Double Standard

Why is it that our federal government refrains from enforcing bans on copay accumulators for the American public, yet the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in its 2024 health plan for federal employees has explicitly stated that it “will decline any arrangements which may manipulate the prescription drug benefit design or incorporate any programs such as copay maximizers, copay optimizers, or other similar programs as these types of benefit designs are not in the best interest of enrollees or the Government.”

If such practices are deemed unsuitable for federal employees, why are they considered acceptable for the rest of the American population? This discrepancy raises important questions about healthcare equity.

In conclusion, the prevalence of medical bankruptcy in our country is a pressing issue that requires immediate attention. The introduction of copay accumulator programs and maximizers by PBMs has led to decreased adherence to needed medications, as well as delay in important medical procedures, exacerbating this situation. An across-the-board ban on these programs would offer immediate relief to many families that no longer can afford needed care.

It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure that all patients, regardless of their financial situation or the nature of their health insurance plan, can afford the healthcare they need. This includes ensuring that patients are not penalized for using manufacturer copay cards to help cover their costs. As we move forward, it is crucial that we continue to advocate for policies that prioritize the health and well-being of all patients.
 

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

An intermittent fasting (IF) diet and a standard healthy living (HL) diet focused on healthy foods both lead to weight loss, reduced insulin resistance (IR), and slowed brain aging in older overweight adults with IR, new research showed. However, neither diet has an effect on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers.

Although investigators found both diets were beneficial, some outcomes were more robust with the IF diet.

“The study provides a blueprint for assessing brain effects of dietary interventions and motivates further research on intermittent fasting and continuous diets for brain health optimization,” wrote the investigators, led by Dimitrios Kapogiannis, MD, chief, human neuroscience section, National Institute on Aging, and adjunct associate professor of neurology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The findings were published online in Cell Metabolism.
 

Cognitive Outcomes

The prevalence of IR — reduced cellular sensitivity to insulin that’s a hallmark of type 2 diabetes — increases with age and obesity, adding to an increased risk for accelerated brain aging as well as AD and related dementias (ADRD) in older adults who have overweight.

Studies reported healthy diets promote overall health, but it’s unclear whether, and to what extent, they improve brain health beyond general health enhancement.

Researchers used multiple brain and cognitive measures to assess dietary effects on brain health, including peripherally harvested neuron-derived extracellular vesicles (NDEVs) to probe neuronal insulin signaling; MRI to investigate the pace of brain aging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure brain glucose, metabolites, and neurotransmitters; and NDEVs and cerebrospinal fluid to derive biomarkers for AD/ADRD.

The study included 40 cognitively intact overweight participants with IR, mean age 63.2 years, 60% women, and 62.5% White. Their mean body weight was 97.1 kg and mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.4.

Participants were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of an IF diet or a HL diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy and limits added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.

The IF diet involved following the HL diet for 5 days per week and restricting calories to a quarter of the recommended daily intake for 2 consecutive days.

Both diets reduced neuronal IR and had comparable effects in improving insulin signaling biomarkers in NDEVs, reducing brain glucose on MRS, and improving blood biomarkers of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Using MRI, researchers also assessed brain age, an indication of whether the brain appears older or younger than an individual’s chronological age. There was a decrease of 2.63 years with the IF diet (P = .05) and 2.42 years with the HL diet (P < .001) in the anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Both diets improved executive function and memory, with those following the IF diet benefiting more in strategic planning, switching between two cognitively demanding tasks, cued recall, and other areas.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

AD biomarkers including amyloid beta 42 (Aß42), Aß40, and plasma phosphorylated-tau181 did not change with either diet, a finding that investigators speculated may be due to the short duration of the study. Light-chain neurofilaments increased across groups with no differences between the diets.

In other findings, BMI decreased by 1.41 with the IF diet and by 0.80 with the HL diet, and a similar pattern was observed for weight. Waist circumference decreased in both groups with no significant differences between diets.

An exploratory analysis showed executive function improved with the IF diet but not with the HL diet in women, whereas it improved with both diets in men. BMI and apolipoprotein E and SLC16A7 genotypes also modulated diet effects.

Both diets were well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and occurred only with the IF diet.

The authors noted the findings are preliminary and results are hypothesis generating. Study limitations included the study’s short duration and its power to detect anything other than large to moderate effect size changes and differences between the diets. Researchers also didn’t acquire data on dietary intake, so lapses in adherence can’t be excluded. However, the large decreases in BMI, weight, and waist circumference with both diets indicated high adherence.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no competing interests.
 

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

An intermittent fasting (IF) diet and a standard healthy living (HL) diet focused on healthy foods both lead to weight loss, reduced insulin resistance (IR), and slowed brain aging in older overweight adults with IR, new research showed. However, neither diet has an effect on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers.

Although investigators found both diets were beneficial, some outcomes were more robust with the IF diet.

“The study provides a blueprint for assessing brain effects of dietary interventions and motivates further research on intermittent fasting and continuous diets for brain health optimization,” wrote the investigators, led by Dimitrios Kapogiannis, MD, chief, human neuroscience section, National Institute on Aging, and adjunct associate professor of neurology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The findings were published online in Cell Metabolism.
 

Cognitive Outcomes

The prevalence of IR — reduced cellular sensitivity to insulin that’s a hallmark of type 2 diabetes — increases with age and obesity, adding to an increased risk for accelerated brain aging as well as AD and related dementias (ADRD) in older adults who have overweight.

Studies reported healthy diets promote overall health, but it’s unclear whether, and to what extent, they improve brain health beyond general health enhancement.

Researchers used multiple brain and cognitive measures to assess dietary effects on brain health, including peripherally harvested neuron-derived extracellular vesicles (NDEVs) to probe neuronal insulin signaling; MRI to investigate the pace of brain aging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure brain glucose, metabolites, and neurotransmitters; and NDEVs and cerebrospinal fluid to derive biomarkers for AD/ADRD.

The study included 40 cognitively intact overweight participants with IR, mean age 63.2 years, 60% women, and 62.5% White. Their mean body weight was 97.1 kg and mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.4.

Participants were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of an IF diet or a HL diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy and limits added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.

The IF diet involved following the HL diet for 5 days per week and restricting calories to a quarter of the recommended daily intake for 2 consecutive days.

Both diets reduced neuronal IR and had comparable effects in improving insulin signaling biomarkers in NDEVs, reducing brain glucose on MRS, and improving blood biomarkers of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Using MRI, researchers also assessed brain age, an indication of whether the brain appears older or younger than an individual’s chronological age. There was a decrease of 2.63 years with the IF diet (P = .05) and 2.42 years with the HL diet (P < .001) in the anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Both diets improved executive function and memory, with those following the IF diet benefiting more in strategic planning, switching between two cognitively demanding tasks, cued recall, and other areas.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

AD biomarkers including amyloid beta 42 (Aß42), Aß40, and plasma phosphorylated-tau181 did not change with either diet, a finding that investigators speculated may be due to the short duration of the study. Light-chain neurofilaments increased across groups with no differences between the diets.

In other findings, BMI decreased by 1.41 with the IF diet and by 0.80 with the HL diet, and a similar pattern was observed for weight. Waist circumference decreased in both groups with no significant differences between diets.

An exploratory analysis showed executive function improved with the IF diet but not with the HL diet in women, whereas it improved with both diets in men. BMI and apolipoprotein E and SLC16A7 genotypes also modulated diet effects.

Both diets were well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and occurred only with the IF diet.

The authors noted the findings are preliminary and results are hypothesis generating. Study limitations included the study’s short duration and its power to detect anything other than large to moderate effect size changes and differences between the diets. Researchers also didn’t acquire data on dietary intake, so lapses in adherence can’t be excluded. However, the large decreases in BMI, weight, and waist circumference with both diets indicated high adherence.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no competing interests.
 

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

An intermittent fasting (IF) diet and a standard healthy living (HL) diet focused on healthy foods both lead to weight loss, reduced insulin resistance (IR), and slowed brain aging in older overweight adults with IR, new research showed. However, neither diet has an effect on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers.

Although investigators found both diets were beneficial, some outcomes were more robust with the IF diet.

“The study provides a blueprint for assessing brain effects of dietary interventions and motivates further research on intermittent fasting and continuous diets for brain health optimization,” wrote the investigators, led by Dimitrios Kapogiannis, MD, chief, human neuroscience section, National Institute on Aging, and adjunct associate professor of neurology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The findings were published online in Cell Metabolism.
 

Cognitive Outcomes

The prevalence of IR — reduced cellular sensitivity to insulin that’s a hallmark of type 2 diabetes — increases with age and obesity, adding to an increased risk for accelerated brain aging as well as AD and related dementias (ADRD) in older adults who have overweight.

Studies reported healthy diets promote overall health, but it’s unclear whether, and to what extent, they improve brain health beyond general health enhancement.

Researchers used multiple brain and cognitive measures to assess dietary effects on brain health, including peripherally harvested neuron-derived extracellular vesicles (NDEVs) to probe neuronal insulin signaling; MRI to investigate the pace of brain aging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure brain glucose, metabolites, and neurotransmitters; and NDEVs and cerebrospinal fluid to derive biomarkers for AD/ADRD.

The study included 40 cognitively intact overweight participants with IR, mean age 63.2 years, 60% women, and 62.5% White. Their mean body weight was 97.1 kg and mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.4.

Participants were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of an IF diet or a HL diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy and limits added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.

The IF diet involved following the HL diet for 5 days per week and restricting calories to a quarter of the recommended daily intake for 2 consecutive days.

Both diets reduced neuronal IR and had comparable effects in improving insulin signaling biomarkers in NDEVs, reducing brain glucose on MRS, and improving blood biomarkers of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Using MRI, researchers also assessed brain age, an indication of whether the brain appears older or younger than an individual’s chronological age. There was a decrease of 2.63 years with the IF diet (P = .05) and 2.42 years with the HL diet (P < .001) in the anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Both diets improved executive function and memory, with those following the IF diet benefiting more in strategic planning, switching between two cognitively demanding tasks, cued recall, and other areas.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

AD biomarkers including amyloid beta 42 (Aß42), Aß40, and plasma phosphorylated-tau181 did not change with either diet, a finding that investigators speculated may be due to the short duration of the study. Light-chain neurofilaments increased across groups with no differences between the diets.

In other findings, BMI decreased by 1.41 with the IF diet and by 0.80 with the HL diet, and a similar pattern was observed for weight. Waist circumference decreased in both groups with no significant differences between diets.

An exploratory analysis showed executive function improved with the IF diet but not with the HL diet in women, whereas it improved with both diets in men. BMI and apolipoprotein E and SLC16A7 genotypes also modulated diet effects.

Both diets were well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and occurred only with the IF diet.

The authors noted the findings are preliminary and results are hypothesis generating. Study limitations included the study’s short duration and its power to detect anything other than large to moderate effect size changes and differences between the diets. Researchers also didn’t acquire data on dietary intake, so lapses in adherence can’t be excluded. However, the large decreases in BMI, weight, and waist circumference with both diets indicated high adherence.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no competing interests.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults show an increase in creatinine and cystatin C levels after exposure to extreme heat in a dry setting despite staying hydrated; however, changes in these kidney function biomarkers are much more modest in a humid setting and in young adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older adults are vulnerable to heat-related morbidity and mortality, with kidney complications accounting for many excess hospital admissions during heat waves.
• Researchers investigated plasma-based markers of kidney function following extreme heat exposure for 3 hours in 20 young (21-39 years) and 18 older (65-76 years) adults recruited from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
• All participants underwent heat exposure in a chamber at 47 °C (116 °F) and 15% relative humidity (dry setting) and 41 °C (105 °F) and 40% relative humidity (humid setting) on separate days. They performed light physical activity mimicking their daily tasks and drank 3 mL/kg body mass of water every hour while exposed to heat.
• Blood samples were collected at baseline, immediately before the end of heat exposure (end-heating), and 2 hours after heat exposure.
• Plasma creatinine was the primary outcome, with a change ≥ 0.3 mg/dL considered as clinically meaningful. Cystatin C was the secondary outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• The plasma creatinine level showed a modest increase from baseline to end-heating (difference, 0.10 mg/dL; P = .004) and at 2 hours post exposure (difference, 0.17 mg/dL; P < .001) in older adults facing heat exposure in the dry setting.
• The mean cystatin C levels also increased from baseline to end-heating by 0.29 mg/L (P = .01) and at 2 hours post heat exposure by 0.28 mg/L (P = .004) in older adults in the dry setting.
• The mean creatinine levels increased by only 0.06 mg/dL (P = .01) from baseline to 2 hours post exposure in older adults facing heat exposure in the humid setting.
• Young adults didn’t show any significant change in the plasma cystatin C levels during or after heat exposure; however, there was a modest increase in the plasma creatinine levels after 2 hours of heat exposure (difference, 0.06; P = .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide limited evidence that the heightened thermal strain in older adults during extreme heat may contribute to reduced kidney function,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zachary J. McKenna, PhD, from the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of plasma-based markers of kidney function, a short laboratory-based exposure, and a small number of generally healthy participants were the main limitations that could affect the generalizability of this study’s findings to broader populations and real-world settings. 

DISCLOSURES:

The National Institutes of Health and American Heart Association funded this study. Two authors declared receiving grants and nonfinancial support from several sources. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults show an increase in creatinine and cystatin C levels after exposure to extreme heat in a dry setting despite staying hydrated; however, changes in these kidney function biomarkers are much more modest in a humid setting and in young adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older adults are vulnerable to heat-related morbidity and mortality, with kidney complications accounting for many excess hospital admissions during heat waves.
• Researchers investigated plasma-based markers of kidney function following extreme heat exposure for 3 hours in 20 young (21-39 years) and 18 older (65-76 years) adults recruited from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
• All participants underwent heat exposure in a chamber at 47 °C (116 °F) and 15% relative humidity (dry setting) and 41 °C (105 °F) and 40% relative humidity (humid setting) on separate days. They performed light physical activity mimicking their daily tasks and drank 3 mL/kg body mass of water every hour while exposed to heat.
• Blood samples were collected at baseline, immediately before the end of heat exposure (end-heating), and 2 hours after heat exposure.
• Plasma creatinine was the primary outcome, with a change ≥ 0.3 mg/dL considered as clinically meaningful. Cystatin C was the secondary outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• The plasma creatinine level showed a modest increase from baseline to end-heating (difference, 0.10 mg/dL; P = .004) and at 2 hours post exposure (difference, 0.17 mg/dL; P < .001) in older adults facing heat exposure in the dry setting.
• The mean cystatin C levels also increased from baseline to end-heating by 0.29 mg/L (P = .01) and at 2 hours post heat exposure by 0.28 mg/L (P = .004) in older adults in the dry setting.
• The mean creatinine levels increased by only 0.06 mg/dL (P = .01) from baseline to 2 hours post exposure in older adults facing heat exposure in the humid setting.
• Young adults didn’t show any significant change in the plasma cystatin C levels during or after heat exposure; however, there was a modest increase in the plasma creatinine levels after 2 hours of heat exposure (difference, 0.06; P = .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide limited evidence that the heightened thermal strain in older adults during extreme heat may contribute to reduced kidney function,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zachary J. McKenna, PhD, from the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of plasma-based markers of kidney function, a short laboratory-based exposure, and a small number of generally healthy participants were the main limitations that could affect the generalizability of this study’s findings to broader populations and real-world settings. 

DISCLOSURES:

The National Institutes of Health and American Heart Association funded this study. Two authors declared receiving grants and nonfinancial support from several sources. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults show an increase in creatinine and cystatin C levels after exposure to extreme heat in a dry setting despite staying hydrated; however, changes in these kidney function biomarkers are much more modest in a humid setting and in young adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older adults are vulnerable to heat-related morbidity and mortality, with kidney complications accounting for many excess hospital admissions during heat waves.
• Researchers investigated plasma-based markers of kidney function following extreme heat exposure for 3 hours in 20 young (21-39 years) and 18 older (65-76 years) adults recruited from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
• All participants underwent heat exposure in a chamber at 47 °C (116 °F) and 15% relative humidity (dry setting) and 41 °C (105 °F) and 40% relative humidity (humid setting) on separate days. They performed light physical activity mimicking their daily tasks and drank 3 mL/kg body mass of water every hour while exposed to heat.
• Blood samples were collected at baseline, immediately before the end of heat exposure (end-heating), and 2 hours after heat exposure.
• Plasma creatinine was the primary outcome, with a change ≥ 0.3 mg/dL considered as clinically meaningful. Cystatin C was the secondary outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• The plasma creatinine level showed a modest increase from baseline to end-heating (difference, 0.10 mg/dL; P = .004) and at 2 hours post exposure (difference, 0.17 mg/dL; P < .001) in older adults facing heat exposure in the dry setting.
• The mean cystatin C levels also increased from baseline to end-heating by 0.29 mg/L (P = .01) and at 2 hours post heat exposure by 0.28 mg/L (P = .004) in older adults in the dry setting.
• The mean creatinine levels increased by only 0.06 mg/dL (P = .01) from baseline to 2 hours post exposure in older adults facing heat exposure in the humid setting.
• Young adults didn’t show any significant change in the plasma cystatin C levels during or after heat exposure; however, there was a modest increase in the plasma creatinine levels after 2 hours of heat exposure (difference, 0.06; P = .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide limited evidence that the heightened thermal strain in older adults during extreme heat may contribute to reduced kidney function,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Zachary J. McKenna, PhD, from the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of plasma-based markers of kidney function, a short laboratory-based exposure, and a small number of generally healthy participants were the main limitations that could affect the generalizability of this study’s findings to broader populations and real-world settings. 

DISCLOSURES:

The National Institutes of Health and American Heart Association funded this study. Two authors declared receiving grants and nonfinancial support from several sources. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.