Mixed Topics

Last year, after a long delay due to COVID, my father’s ashes were finally laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Among the loved ones who came was my favorite aunt, Tante Ilse, who was suffering from dementia. While she wasn’t “following” everything that was going on, she did perk up when she heard my father’s name and would comment on how she liked him and how wonderful he had been to her.

After the ceremony, our family of about 30 gathered at a restaurant where we shared stories and old pictures. Tante Ilse seemed to relish the photos and the time with family. She was doing so well that when we went back to my mom’s home after the reception, my cousins decided to bring Tante Ilse there, too. She had a great time, as evidenced by her famous total-body laugh. In the months before her death, we all commented about that day and how happy she seemed.

I would have hoped for something better than merely clearing amyloid for my aunt.

My aunt’s decline comes to mind as I reflect on media reports of 2 Alzheimer drugs— aducanumab and lecanemab—that have been billed by some as “gamechangers.” These new drugs are monoclonal antibodies directed at amyloid, one of several agents thought to cause Alzheimer disease. The details of aducanumab’s approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) generated a great deal of criticism—with good reason.

Two manufacturer-sponsored studies of aducanumab were halted due to futility of finding a benefit.¹ The FDA’s scientific advisory panel recommended against approval due to a lack of evidence that it did anything more than remove amyloid plaque from the brain. And yet aducanumab received accelerated approval from the FDA. (This author collaborated on an additional analysis using data presented to the FDA, after its approval, which also reported no clinically meaningful effects.²) The other agent, lecanemab, also reduces markers of amyloid and was shown to be only moderately better than placebo in decreasing the rate of decline on various measures of cognition.³ Quite notably, both aducanumab and lecanemab, which are administered parenterally, cost more than $25,000 per year^4,5 and cause amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (brain edema or hemorrhage).

Expensive agents without meaningful benefit. So far, neither of these agents has shown a reduction in things that are truly important to our patients and their families/caregivers: a reduction in caregiver burden and a reduction in the need for placement in long-term care facilities.

This is in contrast to cholinesterase inhibitors, which also slow the rate of cognitive decline.⁶ Among the differences that exist between these agents: Cholinesterase inhibitors are taken orally and are available as generics, which cost less than a thousand dollars per year.⁷ Limited data also suggest that they are associated with a lower risk for nursing home placement.^8,9 (A February 2023 search of clinicaltrials.gov did not reveal any completed or planned head-to-head comparisons of monoclonal antibodies and anticholinergic agents.)

Our patients, their families, and caregivers hold out hope for something that will improve the patient’s cognition and extend the meaningful time they have with their loved ones. So far, the best we have to offer falls far short of these goals. I certainly would have hoped for something better than merely clearing amyloid for my aunt.

It’s time that the FDA adopt more rigorous standards requiring new drugs to, among other things, demonstrate meaningful clinical benefits, provide real cost savings, and be safer than currently available therapies. Other nations seem to be able to do this.^10,11 It is bad enough to provide “hope in a bottle”; it is worse when what is offered is false hope.

Last year, after a long delay due to COVID, my father’s ashes were finally laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Among the loved ones who came was my favorite aunt, Tante Ilse, who was suffering from dementia. While she wasn’t “following” everything that was going on, she did perk up when she heard my father’s name and would comment on how she liked him and how wonderful he had been to her.

After the ceremony, our family of about 30 gathered at a restaurant where we shared stories and old pictures. Tante Ilse seemed to relish the photos and the time with family. She was doing so well that when we went back to my mom’s home after the reception, my cousins decided to bring Tante Ilse there, too. She had a great time, as evidenced by her famous total-body laugh. In the months before her death, we all commented about that day and how happy she seemed.

I would have hoped for something better than merely clearing amyloid for my aunt.

My aunt’s decline comes to mind as I reflect on media reports of 2 Alzheimer drugs— aducanumab and lecanemab—that have been billed by some as “gamechangers.” These new drugs are monoclonal antibodies directed at amyloid, one of several agents thought to cause Alzheimer disease. The details of aducanumab’s approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) generated a great deal of criticism—with good reason.

Two manufacturer-sponsored studies of aducanumab were halted due to futility of finding a benefit.¹ The FDA’s scientific advisory panel recommended against approval due to a lack of evidence that it did anything more than remove amyloid plaque from the brain. And yet aducanumab received accelerated approval from the FDA. (This author collaborated on an additional analysis using data presented to the FDA, after its approval, which also reported no clinically meaningful effects.²) The other agent, lecanemab, also reduces markers of amyloid and was shown to be only moderately better than placebo in decreasing the rate of decline on various measures of cognition.³ Quite notably, both aducanumab and lecanemab, which are administered parenterally, cost more than $25,000 per year^4,5 and cause amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (brain edema or hemorrhage).

Expensive agents without meaningful benefit. So far, neither of these agents has shown a reduction in things that are truly important to our patients and their families/caregivers: a reduction in caregiver burden and a reduction in the need for placement in long-term care facilities.

This is in contrast to cholinesterase inhibitors, which also slow the rate of cognitive decline.⁶ Among the differences that exist between these agents: Cholinesterase inhibitors are taken orally and are available as generics, which cost less than a thousand dollars per year.⁷ Limited data also suggest that they are associated with a lower risk for nursing home placement.^8,9 (A February 2023 search of clinicaltrials.gov did not reveal any completed or planned head-to-head comparisons of monoclonal antibodies and anticholinergic agents.)

Our patients, their families, and caregivers hold out hope for something that will improve the patient’s cognition and extend the meaningful time they have with their loved ones. So far, the best we have to offer falls far short of these goals. I certainly would have hoped for something better than merely clearing amyloid for my aunt.

It’s time that the FDA adopt more rigorous standards requiring new drugs to, among other things, demonstrate meaningful clinical benefits, provide real cost savings, and be safer than currently available therapies. Other nations seem to be able to do this.^10,11 It is bad enough to provide “hope in a bottle”; it is worse when what is offered is false hope.

Last year, after a long delay due to COVID, my father’s ashes were finally laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery. Among the loved ones who came was my favorite aunt, Tante Ilse, who was suffering from dementia. While she wasn’t “following” everything that was going on, she did perk up when she heard my father’s name and would comment on how she liked him and how wonderful he had been to her.

After the ceremony, our family of about 30 gathered at a restaurant where we shared stories and old pictures. Tante Ilse seemed to relish the photos and the time with family. She was doing so well that when we went back to my mom’s home after the reception, my cousins decided to bring Tante Ilse there, too. She had a great time, as evidenced by her famous total-body laugh. In the months before her death, we all commented about that day and how happy she seemed.

I would have hoped for something better than merely clearing amyloid for my aunt.

My aunt’s decline comes to mind as I reflect on media reports of 2 Alzheimer drugs— aducanumab and lecanemab—that have been billed by some as “gamechangers.” These new drugs are monoclonal antibodies directed at amyloid, one of several agents thought to cause Alzheimer disease. The details of aducanumab’s approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) generated a great deal of criticism—with good reason.

Two manufacturer-sponsored studies of aducanumab were halted due to futility of finding a benefit.¹ The FDA’s scientific advisory panel recommended against approval due to a lack of evidence that it did anything more than remove amyloid plaque from the brain. And yet aducanumab received accelerated approval from the FDA. (This author collaborated on an additional analysis using data presented to the FDA, after its approval, which also reported no clinically meaningful effects.²) The other agent, lecanemab, also reduces markers of amyloid and was shown to be only moderately better than placebo in decreasing the rate of decline on various measures of cognition.³ Quite notably, both aducanumab and lecanemab, which are administered parenterally, cost more than $25,000 per year^4,5 and cause amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (brain edema or hemorrhage).

Expensive agents without meaningful benefit. So far, neither of these agents has shown a reduction in things that are truly important to our patients and their families/caregivers: a reduction in caregiver burden and a reduction in the need for placement in long-term care facilities.

This is in contrast to cholinesterase inhibitors, which also slow the rate of cognitive decline.⁶ Among the differences that exist between these agents: Cholinesterase inhibitors are taken orally and are available as generics, which cost less than a thousand dollars per year.⁷ Limited data also suggest that they are associated with a lower risk for nursing home placement.^8,9 (A February 2023 search of clinicaltrials.gov did not reveal any completed or planned head-to-head comparisons of monoclonal antibodies and anticholinergic agents.)

Our patients, their families, and caregivers hold out hope for something that will improve the patient’s cognition and extend the meaningful time they have with their loved ones. So far, the best we have to offer falls far short of these goals. I certainly would have hoped for something better than merely clearing amyloid for my aunt.

It’s time that the FDA adopt more rigorous standards requiring new drugs to, among other things, demonstrate meaningful clinical benefits, provide real cost savings, and be safer than currently available therapies. Other nations seem to be able to do this.^10,11 It is bad enough to provide “hope in a bottle”; it is worse when what is offered is false hope.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In hindsight, Nikki Ruston said, she should have recognized the red flags.

The office in Miami where she scheduled what’s known as a Brazilian butt lift had closed and transferred her records to a different facility, she said. The price she was quoted – and paid upfront – increased the day of the procedure, and she said she did not meet her surgeon until she was about to be placed under general anesthesia.

“I was ready to walk out,” said Ms. Ruston, 44, of Lake Alfred in Central Florida. “But I had paid everything.”

A few days after the July procedure, Ms. Ruston was hospitalized because of infection, blood loss, and nausea, her medical records show.

“I went cheap. That’s what I did,” Ms. Ruston recalled recently. “I looked for the lowest price, and I found him on Instagram.”

Daniel Chang/KHN

People like Ms. Ruston are commonly lured to office-based surgery centers in South Florida through social media marketing that makes Brazilian butt lifts and other cosmetic surgery look deceptively painless, safe, and affordable, say researchers, patient advocates, and surgeon groups.

Unlike ambulatory surgery centers and hospitals, where a patient might stay overnight for observation after treatment, office-based surgery centers offer procedures that don’t typically require an inpatient stay and are regulated as an extension of a doctor’s private practice.

Daniel Chang/KHN

But such surgical offices are often owned by corporations that can offer discount prices by contracting with surgeons who are incentivized to work on as many patients per day as possible, in as little time as possible, according to state regulators and physicians critical of the facilities.

Ms. Ruston said she now lives with constant pain, but for other patients a Brazilian butt lift cost them their lives. After a rash of deaths, and in the absence of national standards, Florida regulators were the first in the nation to enact rules in 2019 meant to make the procedures safer. More than 3 years later, data shows deaths still occur.

Daniel Chang/KHN

Patient advocates and some surgeons – including those who perform the procedure themselves – anticipate the problem will only get worse. Emergency restrictions imposed by the state’s medical board in June expired in September, and the corporate business model popularized in Miami is spreading to other cities.

“We’re seeing entities that have a strong footprint in low-cost, high-volume cosmetic surgery, based in South Florida, manifesting in other parts of the country,” said Bob Basu, MD, MPH, a vice president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a practicing physician in Houston.

During a Brazilian butt lift, fat is taken via liposuction from other areas of the body – such as the torso, back, or thighs – and injected into the buttocks. More than 61,000 buttock augmentation procedures, both butt lifts and implants, were performed nationwide in 2021, a 37% increase from the previous year, according to data from the Aesthetic Society, a trade group of plastic surgeons.

As with all surgery, complications can occur. Miami-Dade County’s medical examiner has documented nearly three dozen cosmetic surgery patient deaths since 2009, of which 26 resulted from a Brazilian butt lift. In each case, the person died from a pulmonary fat embolism, when fat entered the bloodstream through veins in the gluteal muscles and stopped blood from flowing to the lungs.

No national reporting system or insurance code tracks outcomes and patient demographics for a Brazilian butt lift. About 3% of surgeons worldwide had a patient die as a result of the procedure, according to a 2017 report from an Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force.

Medical experts said the problem is driven, in part, by having medical professionals like physician assistants and nurse practitioners perform key parts of the butt lift instead of doctors. It’s also driven by a business model that is motivated by profit, not safety, and incentivizes surgeons to exceed the number of surgeries outlined in their contracts.

In May, after a fifth patient in as many months died of complications in Miami-Dade County, Kevin Cairns, MD, proposed the state’s emergency rule to limit the number of butt lifts a surgeon could perform each day.

“I was getting sick of reading about women dying and seeing cases come before the board,” said Dr. Cairns, a physician and former member of the Florida Board of Medicine.

Some doctors performed as many as seven, according to disciplinary cases against surgeons prosecuted by the Florida Department of Health. The emergency rule limited them to no more than three, and required the use of an ultrasound to help surgeons lower the risk of a pulmonary fat clot.

But a group of physicians who perform Brazilian butt lifts in South Florida clapped back and formed Surgeons for Safety. They argued the new requirements would make the situation worse. Qualified doctors would have to do fewer procedures, they said, thus driving patients to dangerous medical professionals who don’t follow rules.

The group has since donated more than $350,000 to the state’s Republican Party, Republican candidates, and Republican political action committees, according to campaign contribution data from the Florida Department of State.

Surgeons for Safety declined KHN’s repeated interview requests. Although the group’s president, Constantino Mendieta, MD, wrote in an August editorial that he agreed not all surgeons have followed the standard of care, he called the limits put on surgeons “arbitrary.” The rule sets “a historic precedent of controlling surgeons,” he said during a meeting with Florida’s medical board.

In January, Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, a Republican, filed a draft bill with the state legislature that proposes no limit on the number of Brazilian butt lifts a surgeon can perform in a day. Instead, it requires office surgery centers where the procedures are performed to staff one physician per patient and prohibits surgeons from working on more than one person at a time.

The bill would also allow surgeons to delegate some parts of the procedure to other clinicians under their direct supervision.

Florida’s legislature convenes on March 7.

Consumers considering cosmetic procedures are urged to be cautious. Like Ms. Ruston, many people base their expectations on before-and-after photos and marketing videos posted on social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram.

“That’s very dangerous,” said Dr. Basu, of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “They’re excited about a low price and they forget about doing their homework,” he said.

The average price of a buttocks augmentation in 2021 was $4,000, according to data from the Aesthetic Society. But that’s only for the physician’s fee and does not cover anesthesia, operating room fees, prescriptions, or other expenses. A “safe” Brazilian butt lift, performed in an accredited facility and with proper aftercare, costs between $12,000 and $18,000, according to a recent article on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ website.

Although Florida requires a physician’s license to perform liposuction on patients who are under general anesthesia, it’s common in the medical field for midlevel medical practitioners, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to do the procedure in office settings, according to Mark Mofid, MD, who coauthored the 2017 Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation task force study.

By relying on staffers who don’t have the same specialty training and get paid less, office-based surgeons can complete more butt lifts per day and charge a lower price.

“They’re doing all of them simultaneously in three or four different rooms, and it’s being staffed by one surgeon,” said Dr. Mofid, a plastic surgeon in San Diego, who added that he does not perform more than one Brazilian butt lift in a day. “The surgeon isn’t doing the actual case. It’s assistants.”

Dr. Basu said patients should ask whether their doctor holds privileges to perform the same procedure at a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, which have stricter rules than office surgery centers in terms of who can perform butt lifts and how they should be done.

People in search of bargains are reminded that cosmetic surgery can have other serious risks beyond the deadly fat clots, such as infection and organ puncture, plus problems with the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Ms. Ruston’s surgery was performed by a board-certified plastic surgeon she said she found on Instagram. She was originally quoted $4,995, which she said she paid in full before surgery. But when she arrived in Miami, she said, the clinic tacked on fees for liposuction and for postsurgical garments and devices.

“I ended up having to pay, like, $8,000,” Ms. Ruston said. A few days after Ms. Ruston returned home to Lake Alfred, she said, she started to feel dizzy and weak and called 911.

Paramedics took her to an emergency room, where doctors diagnosed her with anemia due to blood loss, and blood and abdominal infections, her medical records show.

“If I could go back in time,” she said, “I wouldn’t have had it done.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in medicine. In 2022, there were 851 applicants (613 doctor of medicine seniors, 85 doctor of osteopathic medicine seniors) for 492 postgraduate year (PGY) 2 positions.¹ During the 2022 application season, the average matched dermatology candidate had 7.2 research experiences; 20.9 abstracts, presentations, or publications; 11 volunteer experiences; and a US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score of 257.¹ With hopes of matching into such a competitive field, students often seek advice from academic dermatology mentors. Such advice may substantially differ based on each mentor and may or may not be evidence based.

We sought to analyze the range of advice given to medical students applying to dermatology residency programs via a survey to members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) with the intent to help applicants and mentors understand how letters of intent, letters of recommendation (LORs), and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) supplemental applications are used by dermatology programs nationwide.

Methods

The study was reviewed by The Ohio State University institutional review board and was deemed exempt. A branching-logic survey with common questions from medical students while applying to dermatology residency programs (Table) was sent to all members of APD through the email listserve. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) to ensure data security.

The survey was distributed from August 28, 2022, to September 12, 2022. A total of 101 surveys were returned from 646 listserve members (15.6%). Given the branching-logic questions, differing numbers of responses were collected for each question. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze and report the results.

Results

Residency Program Number—Members of the APD were asked if they recommend students apply to a certain number of programs, and if so, how many programs. Of members who responded, 62.2% (61/98) either always (22.4% [22/98]) or sometimes (40.2% [39/97]) suggested students apply to a certain number of programs. When mentors made a recommendation, 54.1% (33/61) recommended applying to 59 or fewer programs, with only 9.8% (6/61) recommending students apply to 80 or more programs.

Gap Year—We queried mentors about their recommendations for a research gap year and asked which applicants should pursue this extra year. Our survey found that 74.5% of mentors (73/98) almost always (4.1% [4/98]) or sometimes (70.4% [69/98]) recommended a research gap year, most commonly for those applicants with a strong research interest (71.8% [51/71]). Other reasons mentors recommended a dedicated research year during medical school included low USMLE Step scores (50.7% [36/71]), low grades (45.1% [32/71]), little research (46.5% [33/71]), and no home program (43.7% [31/71]).

Internship Choices—Our survey results indicated that nearly two-thirds (63.3% [62/98]) of mentors did not give applicants a recommendation on type of internship (PGY-1). If a recommendation was given, academic dermatologists more commonly recommended an internal medicine preliminary year (29.6% [29/98]) over a transitional year (7.1% [7/98]).

Communication of Interest Via a Letter of Intent—We asked mentors if they recommended applicants send a letter of intent and conversely if receiving a letter of intent impacted their rank list. Nearly half (48.5% [47/97]) of mentors indicated they did not recommend sending a letter of intent, with only 15.5% (15/97) of mentors regularly recommending this practice. Additionally, 75.8% of mentors indicated that a letter of intent never (42.1% [40/95]) or rarely (33.7% [32/95]) impacted their rank list.

Rotation Choices—We queried mentors if they recommended students complete away rotations, and if so, how many rotations did they recommend. We found that 85.9% (85/99) of mentors recommended students complete an away rotation; 63.1% (53/84) of them recommended performing 2 away rotations, and 14.3% (12/84) of respondents recommended students complete 3 away rotations. More than a quarter of mentors (27.1% [23/85]) indicated their home medical schools limited the number of away rotations a medical student could complete in any 1 specialty, and 42.4% (36/85) of respondents were unsure if such a limitation existed.

Letters of Recommendation—Our survey asked respondents to rank various factors on a 5-point scale (1=not important; 5=very important) when deciding who should write the students’ LORs. Mentors indicated that the most important factor for letter-writer selection was how well the letter writer knows the applicant, with 90.8% (89/98) of mentors rating the importance of this quality as a 4 or 5 (Figure). More than half of respondents rated the name recognition of the letter writer and program director letter as a 4 or 5 in importance (54.1% [53/98] and 58.2% [57/98], respectively). Type of letter (standardized vs nonstandardized), title of letter writer, letters from an away rotation, and chair letter scored lower, with fewer than half of mentors rating these as a 4 or 5 in importance.

Supplemental Application—When asked about the 2022 application cycle, respondents of our survey reported that the supplemental application was overall more important in deciding which applicants to interview vs which to rank highly. Prior experiences were important (ranked 4 or 5) for 58.8% (57/97) of respondents in choosing applicants to interview, and 49.4% (48/97) of respondents thought prior experiences were important for ranking. Similarly, 34.0% (33/97) of mentors indicated geographic preference was important (ranked 4 or 5) for interview compared with only 23.8% (23/97) for ranking. Finally, 57.7% (56/97) of our survey respondents denoted that program signals were important or very important in choosing which applicants to interview, while 32.0% (31/97) indicated that program signals were important in ranking applicants.

Comment

Residency Programs: Which Ones, and How Many?—The number of applications for dermatology residency programs has increased 33.9% from 2010 to 2019.² The American Association of Medical Colleges Apply Smart data from 2013 to 2017 indicate that dermatology applicants arrive at a point of diminishing return between 37 and 62 applications, with variation within that range based on USMLE Step 1 score,³ and our data support this with nearly two-thirds of dermatology advisors recommending students apply within this range. Despite this data, dermatology residency applicants applied to more programs over the last decade (64.8 vs 77.0),² likely to maximize their chance of matching.

Research Gap Years During Medical School—Prior research has shown that nearly half of faculty indicated that a research year during medical school can distinguish similar applicants, and close to 25% of applicants completed a research gap year.^4,5 However, available data indicate that taking a research gap year has no effect on match rate or number of interview invites but does correlate with match rates at the highest ranked dermatology residency programs.^6-8

Our data indicate that the most commonly recommended reason for a research gap year was an applicants’ strong interest in research. However, nearly half of dermatology mentors recommended research years during medical school for reasons other than an interest in research. As research gap years increase in popularity, future research is needed to confirm the consequence of this additional year and which applicants, if any, will benefit from such a year.

Preferences for Intern Year—Prior research suggests that dermatology residency program directors favor PGY-1 preliminary medicine internships because of the rigor of training.^9,10 Our data continue to show a preference for internal medicine preliminary years over transitional years. However, given nearly two-thirds of dermatology mentors do not give applicants any recommendations on PGY-1 year, this preference may be fading.

Letters of Intent Not Recommended—Research in 2022 found that 78.8% of dermatology applicants sent a letter of intent communicating a plan to rank that program number 1, with nearly 13% sending such a letter to more than 1 program.¹¹ With nearly half of mentors in our survey actively discouraging this process and more than 75% of mentors not utilizing this letter, the APD issued a brief statement on the 2022-2023 application cycle stating, “Post-interview communication of preference—including ‘letters of intent’ and thank you letters—should not be sent to programs. These types of communication are typically not used by residency programs in decision-making and lead to downstream pressures on applicants.”¹²

Away Rotations—Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, data demonstrated that nearly one-third of dermatology applicants (29%) matched at their home institution, and nearly one-fifth (18%) matched where they completed an away rotation.¹³ In-person away rotations were eliminated in 2020 and restricted to 1 away rotation in 2021. Restrictions regarding away rotations were removed in 2022. Our data indicate that dermatology mentors strongly supported an away rotation, with more than half of them recommending at least 2 away rotations.

Further research is needed to determine the effect numerous away rotations have on minimizing students’ exposure to other specialties outside their chosen field. Additionally, further studies are needed to determine the impact away rotations have on economically disadvantaged students, students without home programs, and students with families. In an effort to standardize the number of away rotations, the APD issued a statement for the 2023-2024 application cycle indicating that dermatology applicants should limit away rotations to 2 in-person electives. Students without a home dermatology program could consider completing up to 3 electives.¹⁴

Who Should Write LORs?—Research in 2014 demonstrated that LORs were very important in determining applicants to interview, with a strong preference for LORs from academic dermatologists and colleagues.¹⁵ Our data strongly indicated applicants should predominantly ask for letters from writers who know them well. The majority of mentors did not give value to the rank of the letter writer (eg, assistant professor, associate professor, professor), type of letter, chair letters, or letters from an away rotation. These data may help alleviate stress many students feel as they search for letter writers.

How is the Supplemental Application Used?—In 2022, the ERAS supplemental application was introduced, which allowed applicants to detail 5 meaningful experiences, describe impactful life challenges, and indicate preferences for geographic region. Dermatology residency applicants also were able to choose 3 residency programs to signal interest in that program. Our data found that the supplemental application was utilized predominantly to select applicants to interview, which is in line with the Association of American Medical Colleges’ and APD guidelines indicating that this tool is solely meant to assist with application review.¹⁶ Further research and data will hopefully inform approaches to best utilize the ERAS supplemental application data.

Limitations—Our data were limited by response rate and sample size, as only academic dermatologists belonging to the APD were queried. Additionally, we did not track personal information of the mentors, so more than 1 mentor may have responded from a single institution, making it possible that our data may not be broadly applicable to all institutions.

Conclusion

Although there is no algorithmic method of advising medical students who are interested in dermatology, our survey data help to describe the range of advice currently given to students, which can improve and guide future recommendations. Additionally, some of our data demonstrate a discrepancy between mentor advice and current medical student practice for the number of applications and use of a letter of intent. We hope our data will assist academic dermatology mentors in the provision of advice to mentees as well as inform organizations seeking to create standards and official recommendations regarding aspects of the application process.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in medicine. In 2022, there were 851 applicants (613 doctor of medicine seniors, 85 doctor of osteopathic medicine seniors) for 492 postgraduate year (PGY) 2 positions.¹ During the 2022 application season, the average matched dermatology candidate had 7.2 research experiences; 20.9 abstracts, presentations, or publications; 11 volunteer experiences; and a US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score of 257.¹ With hopes of matching into such a competitive field, students often seek advice from academic dermatology mentors. Such advice may substantially differ based on each mentor and may or may not be evidence based.

We sought to analyze the range of advice given to medical students applying to dermatology residency programs via a survey to members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) with the intent to help applicants and mentors understand how letters of intent, letters of recommendation (LORs), and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) supplemental applications are used by dermatology programs nationwide.

Methods

The study was reviewed by The Ohio State University institutional review board and was deemed exempt. A branching-logic survey with common questions from medical students while applying to dermatology residency programs (Table) was sent to all members of APD through the email listserve. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) to ensure data security.

The survey was distributed from August 28, 2022, to September 12, 2022. A total of 101 surveys were returned from 646 listserve members (15.6%). Given the branching-logic questions, differing numbers of responses were collected for each question. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze and report the results.

Results

Residency Program Number—Members of the APD were asked if they recommend students apply to a certain number of programs, and if so, how many programs. Of members who responded, 62.2% (61/98) either always (22.4% [22/98]) or sometimes (40.2% [39/97]) suggested students apply to a certain number of programs. When mentors made a recommendation, 54.1% (33/61) recommended applying to 59 or fewer programs, with only 9.8% (6/61) recommending students apply to 80 or more programs.

Gap Year—We queried mentors about their recommendations for a research gap year and asked which applicants should pursue this extra year. Our survey found that 74.5% of mentors (73/98) almost always (4.1% [4/98]) or sometimes (70.4% [69/98]) recommended a research gap year, most commonly for those applicants with a strong research interest (71.8% [51/71]). Other reasons mentors recommended a dedicated research year during medical school included low USMLE Step scores (50.7% [36/71]), low grades (45.1% [32/71]), little research (46.5% [33/71]), and no home program (43.7% [31/71]).

Internship Choices—Our survey results indicated that nearly two-thirds (63.3% [62/98]) of mentors did not give applicants a recommendation on type of internship (PGY-1). If a recommendation was given, academic dermatologists more commonly recommended an internal medicine preliminary year (29.6% [29/98]) over a transitional year (7.1% [7/98]).

Communication of Interest Via a Letter of Intent—We asked mentors if they recommended applicants send a letter of intent and conversely if receiving a letter of intent impacted their rank list. Nearly half (48.5% [47/97]) of mentors indicated they did not recommend sending a letter of intent, with only 15.5% (15/97) of mentors regularly recommending this practice. Additionally, 75.8% of mentors indicated that a letter of intent never (42.1% [40/95]) or rarely (33.7% [32/95]) impacted their rank list.

Rotation Choices—We queried mentors if they recommended students complete away rotations, and if so, how many rotations did they recommend. We found that 85.9% (85/99) of mentors recommended students complete an away rotation; 63.1% (53/84) of them recommended performing 2 away rotations, and 14.3% (12/84) of respondents recommended students complete 3 away rotations. More than a quarter of mentors (27.1% [23/85]) indicated their home medical schools limited the number of away rotations a medical student could complete in any 1 specialty, and 42.4% (36/85) of respondents were unsure if such a limitation existed.

Letters of Recommendation—Our survey asked respondents to rank various factors on a 5-point scale (1=not important; 5=very important) when deciding who should write the students’ LORs. Mentors indicated that the most important factor for letter-writer selection was how well the letter writer knows the applicant, with 90.8% (89/98) of mentors rating the importance of this quality as a 4 or 5 (Figure). More than half of respondents rated the name recognition of the letter writer and program director letter as a 4 or 5 in importance (54.1% [53/98] and 58.2% [57/98], respectively). Type of letter (standardized vs nonstandardized), title of letter writer, letters from an away rotation, and chair letter scored lower, with fewer than half of mentors rating these as a 4 or 5 in importance.

Supplemental Application—When asked about the 2022 application cycle, respondents of our survey reported that the supplemental application was overall more important in deciding which applicants to interview vs which to rank highly. Prior experiences were important (ranked 4 or 5) for 58.8% (57/97) of respondents in choosing applicants to interview, and 49.4% (48/97) of respondents thought prior experiences were important for ranking. Similarly, 34.0% (33/97) of mentors indicated geographic preference was important (ranked 4 or 5) for interview compared with only 23.8% (23/97) for ranking. Finally, 57.7% (56/97) of our survey respondents denoted that program signals were important or very important in choosing which applicants to interview, while 32.0% (31/97) indicated that program signals were important in ranking applicants.

Comment

Residency Programs: Which Ones, and How Many?—The number of applications for dermatology residency programs has increased 33.9% from 2010 to 2019.² The American Association of Medical Colleges Apply Smart data from 2013 to 2017 indicate that dermatology applicants arrive at a point of diminishing return between 37 and 62 applications, with variation within that range based on USMLE Step 1 score,³ and our data support this with nearly two-thirds of dermatology advisors recommending students apply within this range. Despite this data, dermatology residency applicants applied to more programs over the last decade (64.8 vs 77.0),² likely to maximize their chance of matching.

Research Gap Years During Medical School—Prior research has shown that nearly half of faculty indicated that a research year during medical school can distinguish similar applicants, and close to 25% of applicants completed a research gap year.^4,5 However, available data indicate that taking a research gap year has no effect on match rate or number of interview invites but does correlate with match rates at the highest ranked dermatology residency programs.^6-8

Our data indicate that the most commonly recommended reason for a research gap year was an applicants’ strong interest in research. However, nearly half of dermatology mentors recommended research years during medical school for reasons other than an interest in research. As research gap years increase in popularity, future research is needed to confirm the consequence of this additional year and which applicants, if any, will benefit from such a year.

Preferences for Intern Year—Prior research suggests that dermatology residency program directors favor PGY-1 preliminary medicine internships because of the rigor of training.^9,10 Our data continue to show a preference for internal medicine preliminary years over transitional years. However, given nearly two-thirds of dermatology mentors do not give applicants any recommendations on PGY-1 year, this preference may be fading.

Letters of Intent Not Recommended—Research in 2022 found that 78.8% of dermatology applicants sent a letter of intent communicating a plan to rank that program number 1, with nearly 13% sending such a letter to more than 1 program.¹¹ With nearly half of mentors in our survey actively discouraging this process and more than 75% of mentors not utilizing this letter, the APD issued a brief statement on the 2022-2023 application cycle stating, “Post-interview communication of preference—including ‘letters of intent’ and thank you letters—should not be sent to programs. These types of communication are typically not used by residency programs in decision-making and lead to downstream pressures on applicants.”¹²

Away Rotations—Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, data demonstrated that nearly one-third of dermatology applicants (29%) matched at their home institution, and nearly one-fifth (18%) matched where they completed an away rotation.¹³ In-person away rotations were eliminated in 2020 and restricted to 1 away rotation in 2021. Restrictions regarding away rotations were removed in 2022. Our data indicate that dermatology mentors strongly supported an away rotation, with more than half of them recommending at least 2 away rotations.

Further research is needed to determine the effect numerous away rotations have on minimizing students’ exposure to other specialties outside their chosen field. Additionally, further studies are needed to determine the impact away rotations have on economically disadvantaged students, students without home programs, and students with families. In an effort to standardize the number of away rotations, the APD issued a statement for the 2023-2024 application cycle indicating that dermatology applicants should limit away rotations to 2 in-person electives. Students without a home dermatology program could consider completing up to 3 electives.¹⁴

Who Should Write LORs?—Research in 2014 demonstrated that LORs were very important in determining applicants to interview, with a strong preference for LORs from academic dermatologists and colleagues.¹⁵ Our data strongly indicated applicants should predominantly ask for letters from writers who know them well. The majority of mentors did not give value to the rank of the letter writer (eg, assistant professor, associate professor, professor), type of letter, chair letters, or letters from an away rotation. These data may help alleviate stress many students feel as they search for letter writers.

How is the Supplemental Application Used?—In 2022, the ERAS supplemental application was introduced, which allowed applicants to detail 5 meaningful experiences, describe impactful life challenges, and indicate preferences for geographic region. Dermatology residency applicants also were able to choose 3 residency programs to signal interest in that program. Our data found that the supplemental application was utilized predominantly to select applicants to interview, which is in line with the Association of American Medical Colleges’ and APD guidelines indicating that this tool is solely meant to assist with application review.¹⁶ Further research and data will hopefully inform approaches to best utilize the ERAS supplemental application data.

Limitations—Our data were limited by response rate and sample size, as only academic dermatologists belonging to the APD were queried. Additionally, we did not track personal information of the mentors, so more than 1 mentor may have responded from a single institution, making it possible that our data may not be broadly applicable to all institutions.

Conclusion

Although there is no algorithmic method of advising medical students who are interested in dermatology, our survey data help to describe the range of advice currently given to students, which can improve and guide future recommendations. Additionally, some of our data demonstrate a discrepancy between mentor advice and current medical student practice for the number of applications and use of a letter of intent. We hope our data will assist academic dermatology mentors in the provision of advice to mentees as well as inform organizations seeking to create standards and official recommendations regarding aspects of the application process.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in medicine. In 2022, there were 851 applicants (613 doctor of medicine seniors, 85 doctor of osteopathic medicine seniors) for 492 postgraduate year (PGY) 2 positions.¹ During the 2022 application season, the average matched dermatology candidate had 7.2 research experiences; 20.9 abstracts, presentations, or publications; 11 volunteer experiences; and a US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score of 257.¹ With hopes of matching into such a competitive field, students often seek advice from academic dermatology mentors. Such advice may substantially differ based on each mentor and may or may not be evidence based.

We sought to analyze the range of advice given to medical students applying to dermatology residency programs via a survey to members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology (APD) with the intent to help applicants and mentors understand how letters of intent, letters of recommendation (LORs), and Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) supplemental applications are used by dermatology programs nationwide.

Methods

The study was reviewed by The Ohio State University institutional review board and was deemed exempt. A branching-logic survey with common questions from medical students while applying to dermatology residency programs (Table) was sent to all members of APD through the email listserve. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) to ensure data security.

The survey was distributed from August 28, 2022, to September 12, 2022. A total of 101 surveys were returned from 646 listserve members (15.6%). Given the branching-logic questions, differing numbers of responses were collected for each question. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze and report the results.

Results

Residency Program Number—Members of the APD were asked if they recommend students apply to a certain number of programs, and if so, how many programs. Of members who responded, 62.2% (61/98) either always (22.4% [22/98]) or sometimes (40.2% [39/97]) suggested students apply to a certain number of programs. When mentors made a recommendation, 54.1% (33/61) recommended applying to 59 or fewer programs, with only 9.8% (6/61) recommending students apply to 80 or more programs.

Gap Year—We queried mentors about their recommendations for a research gap year and asked which applicants should pursue this extra year. Our survey found that 74.5% of mentors (73/98) almost always (4.1% [4/98]) or sometimes (70.4% [69/98]) recommended a research gap year, most commonly for those applicants with a strong research interest (71.8% [51/71]). Other reasons mentors recommended a dedicated research year during medical school included low USMLE Step scores (50.7% [36/71]), low grades (45.1% [32/71]), little research (46.5% [33/71]), and no home program (43.7% [31/71]).

Internship Choices—Our survey results indicated that nearly two-thirds (63.3% [62/98]) of mentors did not give applicants a recommendation on type of internship (PGY-1). If a recommendation was given, academic dermatologists more commonly recommended an internal medicine preliminary year (29.6% [29/98]) over a transitional year (7.1% [7/98]).

Communication of Interest Via a Letter of Intent—We asked mentors if they recommended applicants send a letter of intent and conversely if receiving a letter of intent impacted their rank list. Nearly half (48.5% [47/97]) of mentors indicated they did not recommend sending a letter of intent, with only 15.5% (15/97) of mentors regularly recommending this practice. Additionally, 75.8% of mentors indicated that a letter of intent never (42.1% [40/95]) or rarely (33.7% [32/95]) impacted their rank list.

Rotation Choices—We queried mentors if they recommended students complete away rotations, and if so, how many rotations did they recommend. We found that 85.9% (85/99) of mentors recommended students complete an away rotation; 63.1% (53/84) of them recommended performing 2 away rotations, and 14.3% (12/84) of respondents recommended students complete 3 away rotations. More than a quarter of mentors (27.1% [23/85]) indicated their home medical schools limited the number of away rotations a medical student could complete in any 1 specialty, and 42.4% (36/85) of respondents were unsure if such a limitation existed.

Letters of Recommendation—Our survey asked respondents to rank various factors on a 5-point scale (1=not important; 5=very important) when deciding who should write the students’ LORs. Mentors indicated that the most important factor for letter-writer selection was how well the letter writer knows the applicant, with 90.8% (89/98) of mentors rating the importance of this quality as a 4 or 5 (Figure). More than half of respondents rated the name recognition of the letter writer and program director letter as a 4 or 5 in importance (54.1% [53/98] and 58.2% [57/98], respectively). Type of letter (standardized vs nonstandardized), title of letter writer, letters from an away rotation, and chair letter scored lower, with fewer than half of mentors rating these as a 4 or 5 in importance.

Supplemental Application—When asked about the 2022 application cycle, respondents of our survey reported that the supplemental application was overall more important in deciding which applicants to interview vs which to rank highly. Prior experiences were important (ranked 4 or 5) for 58.8% (57/97) of respondents in choosing applicants to interview, and 49.4% (48/97) of respondents thought prior experiences were important for ranking. Similarly, 34.0% (33/97) of mentors indicated geographic preference was important (ranked 4 or 5) for interview compared with only 23.8% (23/97) for ranking. Finally, 57.7% (56/97) of our survey respondents denoted that program signals were important or very important in choosing which applicants to interview, while 32.0% (31/97) indicated that program signals were important in ranking applicants.

Comment

Residency Programs: Which Ones, and How Many?—The number of applications for dermatology residency programs has increased 33.9% from 2010 to 2019.² The American Association of Medical Colleges Apply Smart data from 2013 to 2017 indicate that dermatology applicants arrive at a point of diminishing return between 37 and 62 applications, with variation within that range based on USMLE Step 1 score,³ and our data support this with nearly two-thirds of dermatology advisors recommending students apply within this range. Despite this data, dermatology residency applicants applied to more programs over the last decade (64.8 vs 77.0),² likely to maximize their chance of matching.

Research Gap Years During Medical School—Prior research has shown that nearly half of faculty indicated that a research year during medical school can distinguish similar applicants, and close to 25% of applicants completed a research gap year.^4,5 However, available data indicate that taking a research gap year has no effect on match rate or number of interview invites but does correlate with match rates at the highest ranked dermatology residency programs.^6-8

Our data indicate that the most commonly recommended reason for a research gap year was an applicants’ strong interest in research. However, nearly half of dermatology mentors recommended research years during medical school for reasons other than an interest in research. As research gap years increase in popularity, future research is needed to confirm the consequence of this additional year and which applicants, if any, will benefit from such a year.

Preferences for Intern Year—Prior research suggests that dermatology residency program directors favor PGY-1 preliminary medicine internships because of the rigor of training.^9,10 Our data continue to show a preference for internal medicine preliminary years over transitional years. However, given nearly two-thirds of dermatology mentors do not give applicants any recommendations on PGY-1 year, this preference may be fading.

Letters of Intent Not Recommended—Research in 2022 found that 78.8% of dermatology applicants sent a letter of intent communicating a plan to rank that program number 1, with nearly 13% sending such a letter to more than 1 program.¹¹ With nearly half of mentors in our survey actively discouraging this process and more than 75% of mentors not utilizing this letter, the APD issued a brief statement on the 2022-2023 application cycle stating, “Post-interview communication of preference—including ‘letters of intent’ and thank you letters—should not be sent to programs. These types of communication are typically not used by residency programs in decision-making and lead to downstream pressures on applicants.”¹²

Away Rotations—Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, data demonstrated that nearly one-third of dermatology applicants (29%) matched at their home institution, and nearly one-fifth (18%) matched where they completed an away rotation.¹³ In-person away rotations were eliminated in 2020 and restricted to 1 away rotation in 2021. Restrictions regarding away rotations were removed in 2022. Our data indicate that dermatology mentors strongly supported an away rotation, with more than half of them recommending at least 2 away rotations.

Further research is needed to determine the effect numerous away rotations have on minimizing students’ exposure to other specialties outside their chosen field. Additionally, further studies are needed to determine the impact away rotations have on economically disadvantaged students, students without home programs, and students with families. In an effort to standardize the number of away rotations, the APD issued a statement for the 2023-2024 application cycle indicating that dermatology applicants should limit away rotations to 2 in-person electives. Students without a home dermatology program could consider completing up to 3 electives.¹⁴

Who Should Write LORs?—Research in 2014 demonstrated that LORs were very important in determining applicants to interview, with a strong preference for LORs from academic dermatologists and colleagues.¹⁵ Our data strongly indicated applicants should predominantly ask for letters from writers who know them well. The majority of mentors did not give value to the rank of the letter writer (eg, assistant professor, associate professor, professor), type of letter, chair letters, or letters from an away rotation. These data may help alleviate stress many students feel as they search for letter writers.

How is the Supplemental Application Used?—In 2022, the ERAS supplemental application was introduced, which allowed applicants to detail 5 meaningful experiences, describe impactful life challenges, and indicate preferences for geographic region. Dermatology residency applicants also were able to choose 3 residency programs to signal interest in that program. Our data found that the supplemental application was utilized predominantly to select applicants to interview, which is in line with the Association of American Medical Colleges’ and APD guidelines indicating that this tool is solely meant to assist with application review.¹⁶ Further research and data will hopefully inform approaches to best utilize the ERAS supplemental application data.

Limitations—Our data were limited by response rate and sample size, as only academic dermatologists belonging to the APD were queried. Additionally, we did not track personal information of the mentors, so more than 1 mentor may have responded from a single institution, making it possible that our data may not be broadly applicable to all institutions.

Conclusion

Although there is no algorithmic method of advising medical students who are interested in dermatology, our survey data help to describe the range of advice currently given to students, which can improve and guide future recommendations. Additionally, some of our data demonstrate a discrepancy between mentor advice and current medical student practice for the number of applications and use of a letter of intent. We hope our data will assist academic dermatology mentors in the provision of advice to mentees as well as inform organizations seeking to create standards and official recommendations regarding aspects of the application process.

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.

The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.

The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.

Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.

Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.

Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.

He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
 

CLEAR Outcomes

The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.

The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).

The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).

The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.

The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).

Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.

Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.

Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.

Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).

Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.

“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.

“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
 

‘Compelling findings’

Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.

She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.

She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.” 

Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis. 

She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”

In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”

He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown. 

On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”

“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”

In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.

But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”

In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.

“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”

The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.

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

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults who added a quarter mile of steps to their day showed a reduction in risk of cardiovascular events by 14% within 4 years, according to a study in more than 400 individuals.

“Aging is such a dynamic process, but most studies of daily steps and step goals are conducted on younger populations,” lead author Erin E. Dooley, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

American Heart Association

The impact of more modest step goals in older adults has not been well studied, Dr. Dooley said.

The population in the current study ranged from 71 to 92 years, with an average age of 78 years. The older age and relatively short follow-up period show the importance of steps and physical activity in older adults, she said.

Dr. Dooley presented the study at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting.

She and her colleagues analyzed a subsample of participants in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, an ongoing study conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study population included 452 adults for whom step data were available at visit 6 of the ARIC study between 2016 and 2017. Participants wore an accelerometer on the waist for at least 10 hours a day for at least 3 days. The mean age of the participants was 78.4 years, 59% were women, and 20% were Black.

Outcomes were measured through December 2019 and included fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

Overall, each additional 500 steps per day was linked to a 14% reduction in risk of a CVD event (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98). The mean step count was 3,447 steps per day, and 34 participants (7.5%) experienced a CVD event over 1,269 person-years of follow-up.

The cumulative risk of CVD was significantly higher (11.5%) in the quartile of adults with the lowest step count (defined as fewer than 2,077 steps per day), compared with 3.5% in those with the highest step count (defined as at least 4,453 steps per day).

In addition, adults in the highest quartile of steps had a 77% reduced risk of a proximal CVD (within 3.5 years) event over the study period (HR, 0.23).

Kei Uesugi/Stone/Getty Images

Additional research is needed to explore whether increased steps prevent or delay CVD and whether low step counts may be a biomarker for underlying disease, the researchers noted in their abstract.

However, the results support the value of even a modest increase in activity to reduce CVD risk in older adults.

Small steps may get patients started

Dr. Dooley said she was surprised at the degree of benefits on heart health from 500 steps, and noted that the findings have clinical implications.

“Steps may be a more understandable metric for physical activity for patients than talking about moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity,” she said in an interview. “While we do not want to diminish the importance of higher intensity physical activity, encouraging small increases in the number of daily steps can also have great benefits for heart health.

“Steps are counted using a variety of devices and phones, so it may be helpful for patients to show clinicians their activity during well visits,” Dr. Dooley said. “Walking may also be more manageable for people as it is low impact. Achievable goals are also important. This study suggests that, for older adults, around 3,000 steps or more was associated with reduced CVD risk,” although the greatest benefits were seen with the most active group who averaged 4,500 or more steps per day.

More research is needed to show how steps may change over time, and how this relates to CVD and heart health,” she said. “At this time, we only had a single measure of physical activity.”

Study fills research gap for older adults

“Currently, the majority of the literature exploring a relationship between physical activity and the risk for developing cardiovascular disease has evaluated all adults together, not only those who are 70 year of age and older,” Monica C. Serra, PhD, of the University of Texas, San Antonio, said in an interview. “This study allows us to start to target specific cardiovascular recommendations for older adults.”.

“It is always exciting to see results from physical activity studies that continue to support prior evidence that even small amounts of physical activity are beneficial to cardiovascular health,” said Dr. Serra, who is also vice chair of the program committee for the meeting. “These results suggest that even if only small additions in physical activity are achievable, they may have cumulative benefits in reducing cardiovascular disease risk.” For clinicians, the results also provide targets that are easy for patients to understand, said Dr. Serra. Daily step counts allow clinicians to provide specific and measurable goals to help their older patients increase physical activity.

“Small additions in total daily step counts may have clinically meaningful benefits to heart health, so promoting their patients to make any slight changes that are able to be consistently incorporated into their schedule should be encouraged. This may be best monitored by encouraging the use of an activity tracker,” she said.

Although the current study adds to the literature with objective measures of physical activity utilizing accelerometers, these devices are not as sensitive at picking up activities such as bicycling or swimming, which may be more appropriate for some older adults with mobility limitations and chronic conditions, Dr. Serra said. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of other activities on CVD in the older population.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association. The study received no outside funding. Dr. Dooley and Dr. Serra had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient

Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.

Pixnio

Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.

It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.

Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”

Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?

Avengers … Assemble.
 

Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change

The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.

Sigmund/Unsplash

Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?

Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.

Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.

Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
 

Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know

As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.

©agmit/istockphoto.com

A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.

Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.

Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.

Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.

Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.

Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient

Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.

Pixnio

Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.

It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.

Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”

Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?

Avengers … Assemble.
 

Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change

The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.

Sigmund/Unsplash

Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?

Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.

Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.

Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
 

Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know

As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.

©agmit/istockphoto.com

A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.

Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.

Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.

Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.

Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.

Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient

Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.

Pixnio

Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.

It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.

Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”

Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?

Avengers … Assemble.
 

Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change

The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.

Sigmund/Unsplash

Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?

Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.

Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.

Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
 

Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know

As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.

©agmit/istockphoto.com

A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.

Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.

Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.

Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.

Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

In December 2017, I was a second-year urology resident at Cleveland Clinic. I’d gone to New Delhi to attend my best friend’s wedding. My flight back was New Delhi to Paris to JFK via Air France. I didn’t sleep on the first flight. So, on the second, I wanted to get some rest, because I had to go back to work the next day. I put on a movie and tried to snooze. As the saying goes in residency, you sleep when you can.

About 3 hours later, a flight attendant made an announcement in French, but I didn’t really hear it. Then they announced in English that they needed a physician. I noticed some flight attendants walking frantically around the economy cabin asking, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” Turns out there were two – the woman sitting next to me happened to be a pediatrician with Doctors Without Borders. I volunteered.

The flight attendant told me a woman was having abdominal pain. I thought it would be something straightforward. Usually, medical emergencies on planes involve chest pain or a panic attack or a vasovagal syncopal episode. Well, I was in for a ride that day.

The woman in pain was traveling from Nigeria. She told me about the abdominal pain. Then she lifted her blanket – she was pregnant. She said she was 37 or 38 weeks in. I said, “Okay, if you’re having this significant abdominal pain, then I need to examine you.” So we decided to move her to the first-class cabin, which was empty (I never did ask why – but it was good we had room to work).

Next step, I went back to my seat and asked the pediatrician if she could assist. My plan was to simply get the passenger through the flight, and as soon as we landed, she would go to the hospital.

There was room to lie down in first class. The pediatrician and I examined her, and she appeared fine. She was traveling with her 4-year-old daughter, and the flight attendants were taking care of her. Everything was okay.

The pilot came back and asked if we would need an emergency landing. I asked him how far it was to JFK – 4 hours. He said the closest place to land would be the Azores Islands, which is Portuguese territory, 2 hours away.

The problem: Even if we made it to the Azores, the hospital there was a very basic facility with no obstetric care available. And by the time the ambulance picked her up and got her there, it would still be 2 or 3 hours total. I said, “No, let’s just observe and continue our course.” Inside my head, I was hoping and praying to God that was the right decision.

Within an hour, everything changed.

The woman’s pain got worse, and she started having contractions. Then her water broke.

Things progressed quickly from there. The contractions progressively got worse and worse. The interval between them got smaller and smaller. The next time we examined her, we could see the baby’s head beginning to crown.

At that point, we had to decide – are we going to deliver? We were in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. There was nothing around us. We were 35,000 feet in the air, surrounded by blue.

The crew wanted us to sign a Good Samaritan agreement. So, we did that. And then I said, “Okay, let’s just go for it.”

We got the plane’s medical kit. They had IV fluids, so I started an IV. I was able to monitor the woman’s blood pressure. They had the usual drugs for doing ACLS [advanced cardiac life support], running the code, and things like that. But they didn’t have a suturing kit or a laceration kit. They didn’t have a scalpel. There was nothing else.

Honestly, there was a lot of panic going through my head. I started thinking about what could go wrong. I’d done an ob.gyn. rotation in medical school and delivered seven babies before it was over. But a plane – even the first-class cabin – is in no way, shape, or form like a delivery room. I was really scared she would hemorrhage out or something.

So, internally, I was having a meltdown. Sij, you have to keep it together right now, because there’s no one else that’s going to do this. Just give it your best shot. And that’s what I did.

I asked the pilot to go to an altitude that would minimize any turbulence, and we were very lucky that the notorious North Atlantic air wasn’t choppy.

More luck: This was the passenger’s second baby, and I was counting on second deliveries being easier. The pediatrician, the flight attendants, and I came together as a team. Two flight attendants had given birth before, so they held the patient’s hand and guided her to push. I was “downstairs” waiting to catch.

She was in some pain. At this point, usually people get an epidural. I kept thinking about what drugs were safe in pregnancy, but I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if they even had morphine or anything on the plane. We gave her some Tylenol.

It didn’t take long. After about 30 minutes, the baby’s head emerged. I was able to navigate it out, avoiding any shoulder dystocia. There’s a certain technique that you learn in medical school, which thankfully came back to me. I caught it – it was a boy born right there in a first-class seat.

I gave him to the pediatrician, and she did the Apgar score, calculating his breathing and appearance. Then my job was to make sure there were no postpartum complications.

I ended up using a piece of string in the kit to tie around the umbilical cord, and then I cut it with scissors. After that, the woman was able to deliver the placenta. She did have some vaginal bleeding, but that resolved by just holding pressure.

The baby was fine. Mom was doing great. No complications. It was a miracle. I was the right person at the right place at the right time. I just think it was something from God.

The pilot made an announcement, “We’re en route to JFK, and there’s an additional passenger on this plane now.”

When we landed, I had very little time because I had to catch my flight to Cleveland. I didn’t even process what had happened.

A few days later, I got this package from Air France with a very expensive bottle of champagne along with a travel voucher. I heard from the mom by email – she and baby were doing fine.

Eventually, the media relations people at Cleveland Clinic heard about the incident, and it became a story that went viral. That was very weird, because I’m usually someone who’s private. All through my residency, people would introduce me with, “Remember that guy who delivered a baby on a plane? That’s him.”

I’m so thankful for everyone who was on that team. It was very beautiful because it was people from different cultures, backgrounds, and faiths who came together to achieve something so miraculous. The patient was Nigerian. The flight attendants were French. The pediatrician and I were American.

That just shows you the power of teamwork and how humanity can come together. Medicine, surgery – everything, in fact – is a team sport.

Sij Hemal, MD, graduated from urology residency at the Cleveland Clinic and is currently a robotic urologic oncology and minimally invasive surgery fellow at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

In December 2017, I was a second-year urology resident at Cleveland Clinic. I’d gone to New Delhi to attend my best friend’s wedding. My flight back was New Delhi to Paris to JFK via Air France. I didn’t sleep on the first flight. So, on the second, I wanted to get some rest, because I had to go back to work the next day. I put on a movie and tried to snooze. As the saying goes in residency, you sleep when you can.

About 3 hours later, a flight attendant made an announcement in French, but I didn’t really hear it. Then they announced in English that they needed a physician. I noticed some flight attendants walking frantically around the economy cabin asking, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” Turns out there were two – the woman sitting next to me happened to be a pediatrician with Doctors Without Borders. I volunteered.

The flight attendant told me a woman was having abdominal pain. I thought it would be something straightforward. Usually, medical emergencies on planes involve chest pain or a panic attack or a vasovagal syncopal episode. Well, I was in for a ride that day.

The woman in pain was traveling from Nigeria. She told me about the abdominal pain. Then she lifted her blanket – she was pregnant. She said she was 37 or 38 weeks in. I said, “Okay, if you’re having this significant abdominal pain, then I need to examine you.” So we decided to move her to the first-class cabin, which was empty (I never did ask why – but it was good we had room to work).

Next step, I went back to my seat and asked the pediatrician if she could assist. My plan was to simply get the passenger through the flight, and as soon as we landed, she would go to the hospital.

There was room to lie down in first class. The pediatrician and I examined her, and she appeared fine. She was traveling with her 4-year-old daughter, and the flight attendants were taking care of her. Everything was okay.

The pilot came back and asked if we would need an emergency landing. I asked him how far it was to JFK – 4 hours. He said the closest place to land would be the Azores Islands, which is Portuguese territory, 2 hours away.

The problem: Even if we made it to the Azores, the hospital there was a very basic facility with no obstetric care available. And by the time the ambulance picked her up and got her there, it would still be 2 or 3 hours total. I said, “No, let’s just observe and continue our course.” Inside my head, I was hoping and praying to God that was the right decision.

Within an hour, everything changed.

The woman’s pain got worse, and she started having contractions. Then her water broke.

Things progressed quickly from there. The contractions progressively got worse and worse. The interval between them got smaller and smaller. The next time we examined her, we could see the baby’s head beginning to crown.

At that point, we had to decide – are we going to deliver? We were in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. There was nothing around us. We were 35,000 feet in the air, surrounded by blue.

The crew wanted us to sign a Good Samaritan agreement. So, we did that. And then I said, “Okay, let’s just go for it.”

We got the plane’s medical kit. They had IV fluids, so I started an IV. I was able to monitor the woman’s blood pressure. They had the usual drugs for doing ACLS [advanced cardiac life support], running the code, and things like that. But they didn’t have a suturing kit or a laceration kit. They didn’t have a scalpel. There was nothing else.

Honestly, there was a lot of panic going through my head. I started thinking about what could go wrong. I’d done an ob.gyn. rotation in medical school and delivered seven babies before it was over. But a plane – even the first-class cabin – is in no way, shape, or form like a delivery room. I was really scared she would hemorrhage out or something.

So, internally, I was having a meltdown. Sij, you have to keep it together right now, because there’s no one else that’s going to do this. Just give it your best shot. And that’s what I did.

I asked the pilot to go to an altitude that would minimize any turbulence, and we were very lucky that the notorious North Atlantic air wasn’t choppy.

More luck: This was the passenger’s second baby, and I was counting on second deliveries being easier. The pediatrician, the flight attendants, and I came together as a team. Two flight attendants had given birth before, so they held the patient’s hand and guided her to push. I was “downstairs” waiting to catch.

She was in some pain. At this point, usually people get an epidural. I kept thinking about what drugs were safe in pregnancy, but I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if they even had morphine or anything on the plane. We gave her some Tylenol.

It didn’t take long. After about 30 minutes, the baby’s head emerged. I was able to navigate it out, avoiding any shoulder dystocia. There’s a certain technique that you learn in medical school, which thankfully came back to me. I caught it – it was a boy born right there in a first-class seat.

I gave him to the pediatrician, and she did the Apgar score, calculating his breathing and appearance. Then my job was to make sure there were no postpartum complications.

I ended up using a piece of string in the kit to tie around the umbilical cord, and then I cut it with scissors. After that, the woman was able to deliver the placenta. She did have some vaginal bleeding, but that resolved by just holding pressure.

The baby was fine. Mom was doing great. No complications. It was a miracle. I was the right person at the right place at the right time. I just think it was something from God.

The pilot made an announcement, “We’re en route to JFK, and there’s an additional passenger on this plane now.”

When we landed, I had very little time because I had to catch my flight to Cleveland. I didn’t even process what had happened.

A few days later, I got this package from Air France with a very expensive bottle of champagne along with a travel voucher. I heard from the mom by email – she and baby were doing fine.

Eventually, the media relations people at Cleveland Clinic heard about the incident, and it became a story that went viral. That was very weird, because I’m usually someone who’s private. All through my residency, people would introduce me with, “Remember that guy who delivered a baby on a plane? That’s him.”

I’m so thankful for everyone who was on that team. It was very beautiful because it was people from different cultures, backgrounds, and faiths who came together to achieve something so miraculous. The patient was Nigerian. The flight attendants were French. The pediatrician and I were American.

That just shows you the power of teamwork and how humanity can come together. Medicine, surgery – everything, in fact – is a team sport.

Sij Hemal, MD, graduated from urology residency at the Cleveland Clinic and is currently a robotic urologic oncology and minimally invasive surgery fellow at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

In December 2017, I was a second-year urology resident at Cleveland Clinic. I’d gone to New Delhi to attend my best friend’s wedding. My flight back was New Delhi to Paris to JFK via Air France. I didn’t sleep on the first flight. So, on the second, I wanted to get some rest, because I had to go back to work the next day. I put on a movie and tried to snooze. As the saying goes in residency, you sleep when you can.

About 3 hours later, a flight attendant made an announcement in French, but I didn’t really hear it. Then they announced in English that they needed a physician. I noticed some flight attendants walking frantically around the economy cabin asking, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” Turns out there were two – the woman sitting next to me happened to be a pediatrician with Doctors Without Borders. I volunteered.

The flight attendant told me a woman was having abdominal pain. I thought it would be something straightforward. Usually, medical emergencies on planes involve chest pain or a panic attack or a vasovagal syncopal episode. Well, I was in for a ride that day.

The woman in pain was traveling from Nigeria. She told me about the abdominal pain. Then she lifted her blanket – she was pregnant. She said she was 37 or 38 weeks in. I said, “Okay, if you’re having this significant abdominal pain, then I need to examine you.” So we decided to move her to the first-class cabin, which was empty (I never did ask why – but it was good we had room to work).

Next step, I went back to my seat and asked the pediatrician if she could assist. My plan was to simply get the passenger through the flight, and as soon as we landed, she would go to the hospital.

There was room to lie down in first class. The pediatrician and I examined her, and she appeared fine. She was traveling with her 4-year-old daughter, and the flight attendants were taking care of her. Everything was okay.

The pilot came back and asked if we would need an emergency landing. I asked him how far it was to JFK – 4 hours. He said the closest place to land would be the Azores Islands, which is Portuguese territory, 2 hours away.

The problem: Even if we made it to the Azores, the hospital there was a very basic facility with no obstetric care available. And by the time the ambulance picked her up and got her there, it would still be 2 or 3 hours total. I said, “No, let’s just observe and continue our course.” Inside my head, I was hoping and praying to God that was the right decision.

Within an hour, everything changed.

The woman’s pain got worse, and she started having contractions. Then her water broke.

Things progressed quickly from there. The contractions progressively got worse and worse. The interval between them got smaller and smaller. The next time we examined her, we could see the baby’s head beginning to crown.

At that point, we had to decide – are we going to deliver? We were in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. There was nothing around us. We were 35,000 feet in the air, surrounded by blue.

The crew wanted us to sign a Good Samaritan agreement. So, we did that. And then I said, “Okay, let’s just go for it.”

We got the plane’s medical kit. They had IV fluids, so I started an IV. I was able to monitor the woman’s blood pressure. They had the usual drugs for doing ACLS [advanced cardiac life support], running the code, and things like that. But they didn’t have a suturing kit or a laceration kit. They didn’t have a scalpel. There was nothing else.

Honestly, there was a lot of panic going through my head. I started thinking about what could go wrong. I’d done an ob.gyn. rotation in medical school and delivered seven babies before it was over. But a plane – even the first-class cabin – is in no way, shape, or form like a delivery room. I was really scared she would hemorrhage out or something.

So, internally, I was having a meltdown. Sij, you have to keep it together right now, because there’s no one else that’s going to do this. Just give it your best shot. And that’s what I did.

I asked the pilot to go to an altitude that would minimize any turbulence, and we were very lucky that the notorious North Atlantic air wasn’t choppy.

More luck: This was the passenger’s second baby, and I was counting on second deliveries being easier. The pediatrician, the flight attendants, and I came together as a team. Two flight attendants had given birth before, so they held the patient’s hand and guided her to push. I was “downstairs” waiting to catch.

She was in some pain. At this point, usually people get an epidural. I kept thinking about what drugs were safe in pregnancy, but I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if they even had morphine or anything on the plane. We gave her some Tylenol.

It didn’t take long. After about 30 minutes, the baby’s head emerged. I was able to navigate it out, avoiding any shoulder dystocia. There’s a certain technique that you learn in medical school, which thankfully came back to me. I caught it – it was a boy born right there in a first-class seat.

I gave him to the pediatrician, and she did the Apgar score, calculating his breathing and appearance. Then my job was to make sure there were no postpartum complications.

I ended up using a piece of string in the kit to tie around the umbilical cord, and then I cut it with scissors. After that, the woman was able to deliver the placenta. She did have some vaginal bleeding, but that resolved by just holding pressure.

The baby was fine. Mom was doing great. No complications. It was a miracle. I was the right person at the right place at the right time. I just think it was something from God.

The pilot made an announcement, “We’re en route to JFK, and there’s an additional passenger on this plane now.”

When we landed, I had very little time because I had to catch my flight to Cleveland. I didn’t even process what had happened.

A few days later, I got this package from Air France with a very expensive bottle of champagne along with a travel voucher. I heard from the mom by email – she and baby were doing fine.

Eventually, the media relations people at Cleveland Clinic heard about the incident, and it became a story that went viral. That was very weird, because I’m usually someone who’s private. All through my residency, people would introduce me with, “Remember that guy who delivered a baby on a plane? That’s him.”

I’m so thankful for everyone who was on that team. It was very beautiful because it was people from different cultures, backgrounds, and faiths who came together to achieve something so miraculous. The patient was Nigerian. The flight attendants were French. The pediatrician and I were American.

That just shows you the power of teamwork and how humanity can come together. Medicine, surgery – everything, in fact – is a team sport.

Sij Hemal, MD, graduated from urology residency at the Cleveland Clinic and is currently a robotic urologic oncology and minimally invasive surgery fellow at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

Each March, we celebrate National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month to raise awareness of this common, deadly, and preventable form of cancer and advocate for increased screening uptake and investment in related research. Enhancing awareness is particularly important for those estimated 20 million average-risk individuals between the ages of 45 and 49 who became newly eligible for screening under the revised 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force CRC screening guidelines, given alarming increases in early-onset CRC incidence. But as we know, awareness of CRC and screening eligibility alone is not enough to improve outcomes without addressing the many other patient, provider, and system-level barriers to screening uptake. Indeed, even before health care delivery disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, CRC screening was underutilized, and inequities in screening uptake and downstream outcomes existed.

While there is not space here for a full discussion of these important topics, I refer you to our Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022 supplement (https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/aga_data_trends_2022_web.pdf), which includes two excellent articles by Dr. Rachel Issaka of the University of Washington (“The Impact of COVID-19 on Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs”) and Dr. Aasma Shaukat of NYU (“Early Onset Colorectal Cancer: Trends in Incidence and Screening”).

In our March issue, we highlight the AGA’s decade-long advocacy efforts to close the “colonoscopy loophole” and reduce financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening. From AGA’s flagship journals, we report on the first Delphi-based consensus recommendations on early-onset colorectal cancer and highlight a study out of Italy comparing two computer-aided optical diagnosis systems for detection of small, leave-in-situ colon polyps. In our March Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Christina Tennyson, MD, who shares the rewards and challenges of practicing gastroenterology in a rural area and explains how she incorporates “lifestyle medicine” into her clinical practice. Finally, GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Avi Ketwaroo introduces our quarterly Perspectives column on endoscopic innovation in management of GI perforation and acute cholecystitis.

We hope you enjoy these stories and all the exciting content featured in our March issue!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor-in-Chief

Each March, we celebrate National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month to raise awareness of this common, deadly, and preventable form of cancer and advocate for increased screening uptake and investment in related research. Enhancing awareness is particularly important for those estimated 20 million average-risk individuals between the ages of 45 and 49 who became newly eligible for screening under the revised 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force CRC screening guidelines, given alarming increases in early-onset CRC incidence. But as we know, awareness of CRC and screening eligibility alone is not enough to improve outcomes without addressing the many other patient, provider, and system-level barriers to screening uptake. Indeed, even before health care delivery disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, CRC screening was underutilized, and inequities in screening uptake and downstream outcomes existed.

While there is not space here for a full discussion of these important topics, I refer you to our Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022 supplement (https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/aga_data_trends_2022_web.pdf), which includes two excellent articles by Dr. Rachel Issaka of the University of Washington (“The Impact of COVID-19 on Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs”) and Dr. Aasma Shaukat of NYU (“Early Onset Colorectal Cancer: Trends in Incidence and Screening”).

In our March issue, we highlight the AGA’s decade-long advocacy efforts to close the “colonoscopy loophole” and reduce financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening. From AGA’s flagship journals, we report on the first Delphi-based consensus recommendations on early-onset colorectal cancer and highlight a study out of Italy comparing two computer-aided optical diagnosis systems for detection of small, leave-in-situ colon polyps. In our March Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Christina Tennyson, MD, who shares the rewards and challenges of practicing gastroenterology in a rural area and explains how she incorporates “lifestyle medicine” into her clinical practice. Finally, GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Avi Ketwaroo introduces our quarterly Perspectives column on endoscopic innovation in management of GI perforation and acute cholecystitis.

We hope you enjoy these stories and all the exciting content featured in our March issue!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor-in-Chief

Each March, we celebrate National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month to raise awareness of this common, deadly, and preventable form of cancer and advocate for increased screening uptake and investment in related research. Enhancing awareness is particularly important for those estimated 20 million average-risk individuals between the ages of 45 and 49 who became newly eligible for screening under the revised 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force CRC screening guidelines, given alarming increases in early-onset CRC incidence. But as we know, awareness of CRC and screening eligibility alone is not enough to improve outcomes without addressing the many other patient, provider, and system-level barriers to screening uptake. Indeed, even before health care delivery disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, CRC screening was underutilized, and inequities in screening uptake and downstream outcomes existed.

While there is not space here for a full discussion of these important topics, I refer you to our Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022 supplement (https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/aga_data_trends_2022_web.pdf), which includes two excellent articles by Dr. Rachel Issaka of the University of Washington (“The Impact of COVID-19 on Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs”) and Dr. Aasma Shaukat of NYU (“Early Onset Colorectal Cancer: Trends in Incidence and Screening”).

In our March issue, we highlight the AGA’s decade-long advocacy efforts to close the “colonoscopy loophole” and reduce financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening. From AGA’s flagship journals, we report on the first Delphi-based consensus recommendations on early-onset colorectal cancer and highlight a study out of Italy comparing two computer-aided optical diagnosis systems for detection of small, leave-in-situ colon polyps. In our March Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Christina Tennyson, MD, who shares the rewards and challenges of practicing gastroenterology in a rural area and explains how she incorporates “lifestyle medicine” into her clinical practice. Finally, GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Avi Ketwaroo introduces our quarterly Perspectives column on endoscopic innovation in management of GI perforation and acute cholecystitis.

We hope you enjoy these stories and all the exciting content featured in our March issue!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor-in-Chief

Someone once told Christina Tennyson, MD, that clinical medicine was a grind. Instead of veering away from the profession, she dove in. Medicine will always have its frustrations, she acknowledged.

However, “finding areas that interest me and incorporating those into clinical practice has really helped me enjoy the practice of medicine,” said Dr. Tennyson, who works at Augusta Health in Fishersville, Va.

Firefly Photography

It has also inspired her to think outside the box in her gastroenterology practice. What her patients eat and the lifestyle choices they make is a central focus of her work. In an interview, she talked about the rewards and challenges of practicing medicine in a rural area and embracing lifestyle medicine to improve the health of patients with digestive diseases.

Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Tennyson: I always had an interest in nutrition. During training at medical school at NYU [New York University], I also really loved learning all I could about internal medicine. I worked with a great surgical team as a student and enjoyed being in the operating room. Although I knew I didn’t want to enter surgery, the experience encouraged me to pursue gastroenterology as it involved nutrition, internal medicine, and procedures as well as my favorite organ, the small bowel. I worked with some great mentors in gastroenterology, such as Dr. David Metz and Dr. Dave Katzka, at the University of Pennsylvania as a resident. I enjoyed taking care of patients with both acute and chronic conditions as well as the mix of doing procedures and seeing patients in the office. It also provided me the opportunity to incorporate nutrition into my clinical practice.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
Dr. Tennyson: I enjoy helping my patients make meaningful lifestyle changes that can positively impact digestive health and well-being. I try to address topics related to lifestyle medicine in most of my clinical visits including eating more fiber/plants, exercise, positive relationships, and stress management. Many of the conditions we treat as gastroenterologists can benefit from addressing aspects of lifestyle along with our conventional medical therapies. I reinforce that attention to these areas can make a difference. I enjoy sharing recipes, books, and websites that I have found helpful.

Q: How has your job changed since you first began your career?
Dr. Tennyson: After fellowship, I joined the faculty at Columbia University and worked at the Celiac Disease Center seeing patients, teaching, and performing clinical research under the mentorship of Peter Green, MD, and Suzanne Lewis, MD. It was a great opportunity to learn and practice in a tertiary center. I later switched roles and joined a general multispecialty community practice in Brooklyn [N.Y.] affiliated with an academic medical center. After practicing in New York for 10 years, I left my clinical practice and performed locums work for several years in underserved rural areas. I enjoyed working in rural areas and took a permanent position at a community hospital in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

Lightning round

What's your superpower? 
Finding fun in mundane things

Favorite movie to quote? 
The Princess Bride

What is your favorite form of exercise? 
A hike in the woods 

Name one thing on your bucket list. 
Galapagos Islands trip before my kids grow up 

Cats or dogs? 
Dogs

Summer or winter? 
Summer

Someone once told Christina Tennyson, MD, that clinical medicine was a grind. Instead of veering away from the profession, she dove in. Medicine will always have its frustrations, she acknowledged.

However, “finding areas that interest me and incorporating those into clinical practice has really helped me enjoy the practice of medicine,” said Dr. Tennyson, who works at Augusta Health in Fishersville, Va.

Firefly Photography

It has also inspired her to think outside the box in her gastroenterology practice. What her patients eat and the lifestyle choices they make is a central focus of her work. In an interview, she talked about the rewards and challenges of practicing medicine in a rural area and embracing lifestyle medicine to improve the health of patients with digestive diseases.

Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Tennyson: I always had an interest in nutrition. During training at medical school at NYU [New York University], I also really loved learning all I could about internal medicine. I worked with a great surgical team as a student and enjoyed being in the operating room. Although I knew I didn’t want to enter surgery, the experience encouraged me to pursue gastroenterology as it involved nutrition, internal medicine, and procedures as well as my favorite organ, the small bowel. I worked with some great mentors in gastroenterology, such as Dr. David Metz and Dr. Dave Katzka, at the University of Pennsylvania as a resident. I enjoyed taking care of patients with both acute and chronic conditions as well as the mix of doing procedures and seeing patients in the office. It also provided me the opportunity to incorporate nutrition into my clinical practice.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
Dr. Tennyson: I enjoy helping my patients make meaningful lifestyle changes that can positively impact digestive health and well-being. I try to address topics related to lifestyle medicine in most of my clinical visits including eating more fiber/plants, exercise, positive relationships, and stress management. Many of the conditions we treat as gastroenterologists can benefit from addressing aspects of lifestyle along with our conventional medical therapies. I reinforce that attention to these areas can make a difference. I enjoy sharing recipes, books, and websites that I have found helpful.

Q: How has your job changed since you first began your career?
Dr. Tennyson: After fellowship, I joined the faculty at Columbia University and worked at the Celiac Disease Center seeing patients, teaching, and performing clinical research under the mentorship of Peter Green, MD, and Suzanne Lewis, MD. It was a great opportunity to learn and practice in a tertiary center. I later switched roles and joined a general multispecialty community practice in Brooklyn [N.Y.] affiliated with an academic medical center. After practicing in New York for 10 years, I left my clinical practice and performed locums work for several years in underserved rural areas. I enjoyed working in rural areas and took a permanent position at a community hospital in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

Lightning round

What's your superpower? 
Finding fun in mundane things

Favorite movie to quote? 
The Princess Bride

What is your favorite form of exercise? 
A hike in the woods 

Name one thing on your bucket list. 
Galapagos Islands trip before my kids grow up 

Cats or dogs? 
Dogs

Summer or winter? 
Summer

Someone once told Christina Tennyson, MD, that clinical medicine was a grind. Instead of veering away from the profession, she dove in. Medicine will always have its frustrations, she acknowledged.

However, “finding areas that interest me and incorporating those into clinical practice has really helped me enjoy the practice of medicine,” said Dr. Tennyson, who works at Augusta Health in Fishersville, Va.

Firefly Photography

It has also inspired her to think outside the box in her gastroenterology practice. What her patients eat and the lifestyle choices they make is a central focus of her work. In an interview, she talked about the rewards and challenges of practicing medicine in a rural area and embracing lifestyle medicine to improve the health of patients with digestive diseases.

Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Tennyson: I always had an interest in nutrition. During training at medical school at NYU [New York University], I also really loved learning all I could about internal medicine. I worked with a great surgical team as a student and enjoyed being in the operating room. Although I knew I didn’t want to enter surgery, the experience encouraged me to pursue gastroenterology as it involved nutrition, internal medicine, and procedures as well as my favorite organ, the small bowel. I worked with some great mentors in gastroenterology, such as Dr. David Metz and Dr. Dave Katzka, at the University of Pennsylvania as a resident. I enjoyed taking care of patients with both acute and chronic conditions as well as the mix of doing procedures and seeing patients in the office. It also provided me the opportunity to incorporate nutrition into my clinical practice.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
Dr. Tennyson: I enjoy helping my patients make meaningful lifestyle changes that can positively impact digestive health and well-being. I try to address topics related to lifestyle medicine in most of my clinical visits including eating more fiber/plants, exercise, positive relationships, and stress management. Many of the conditions we treat as gastroenterologists can benefit from addressing aspects of lifestyle along with our conventional medical therapies. I reinforce that attention to these areas can make a difference. I enjoy sharing recipes, books, and websites that I have found helpful.

Q: How has your job changed since you first began your career?
Dr. Tennyson: After fellowship, I joined the faculty at Columbia University and worked at the Celiac Disease Center seeing patients, teaching, and performing clinical research under the mentorship of Peter Green, MD, and Suzanne Lewis, MD. It was a great opportunity to learn and practice in a tertiary center. I later switched roles and joined a general multispecialty community practice in Brooklyn [N.Y.] affiliated with an academic medical center. After practicing in New York for 10 years, I left my clinical practice and performed locums work for several years in underserved rural areas. I enjoyed working in rural areas and took a permanent position at a community hospital in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

Lightning round

What's your superpower? 
Finding fun in mundane things

Favorite movie to quote? 
The Princess Bride

What is your favorite form of exercise? 
A hike in the woods 

Name one thing on your bucket list. 
Galapagos Islands trip before my kids grow up 

Cats or dogs? 
Dogs

Summer or winter? 
Summer