Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

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

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

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

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

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

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

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

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

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

Delay in treatment will cost hospital millions

A Texas hospital must pay a multimillion-dollar judgment for failing to treat a woman’s spinal injury in time to prevent paralysis, according to a report on WFAA.com, among other news sites.

On March 21, 2019, Judy “Jessie” Adams, then part of a singing-songwriting duo with her husband, Richard, went to Premier Interventional Pain Management, in Flower Mound, Tex., prior to the couple’s drive to Ohio for a funeral. At Premier, Jesse received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) that she hoped would ease her back pain during the long drive.

Instead, the injection ended up increasing her pain.

“He [the pain physician] gave me the shot, but I couldn’t feel my legs. They were tingling, but I couldn’t feel them,” Mrs. Adams explained. “The pain was so bad in my back.” In their suit, Adams and her husband alleged that the doctor had probably “nicked a blood vessel during the ESI procedure, causing Jessie to hemorrhage.” (The couple’s suit against the doctor was settled prior to trial.)

Mrs. Adams remained under observation at the pain facility for about 1½ hours, at which point she was taken by ambulance to nearby Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. There, in the emergency department, staff ordered a “STAT MRI” in preparation for an emergency laminectomy.

For reasons that remain murky, the MRI wasn’t performed for 1 hour and 37 minutes. The emergency laminectomy itself wasn’t started until more than 5 hours after Adams had been admitted to the ED. This was a direct violation of hospital protocol, which required that emergency surgeries be performed within 1 hour of admittance in the first available surgical suite. (At trial, Mrs. Adams’s attorneys from Lyons & Simmons offered evidence that a suite became available 49 minutes after Adams had arrived at the ED.)

During the wait, Mrs. Adams continued to experience excruciating pain. “I kept screaming: ‘Help me,’ ” she recalled. At trial, her attorneys argued that the hospital’s delay in addressing her spinal emergency led directly to her current paralysis, which keeps her confined to a wheelchair and renders her incontinent.

The hospital disagreed. In court, it maintained that Mrs. Adams was already paralyzed when she arrived at the ED and that there was no delay in care.

The jury saw things differently, however. Siding with the plaintiffs, it awarded Mrs. Adams and her husband $10.1 million, including $500,000 for Mr. Adams’s loss of future earnings and $1 million for his “loss of consortium” with his wife.

Their music career now effectively over, Mr. Adams spends most of his time taking care of Mrs. Adams.

“Music was our lifeblood for so many years, and he can’t do it anymore,” Mrs. Adams said. “He goes upstairs to play his guitar and write, and suddenly I need him to come and cath me. I just feel like I’m going to wake up from this bad dream, but it’s the same routine.”
 

Two doctors are absolved in woman’s sudden death

In a 3-2 decision in December 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations in wrongful-death cases applies even in cases in which plaintiffs fail to identify the cause of death in a timely manner, as a report in the Claims Journal indicates.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Linda Reibenstein on behalf of her mother, Mary Ann Whitman, who died in late April 2010 from a ruptured aortic aneurysm.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Whitman visited Patrick D. Conaboy, MD, a Scranton family physician, complaining of a persistent cough, fever, and lower-back pain. Following an initial examination, Dr. Conaboy ordered an aortic duplex ultrasound scan and a CT scan of the patient’s abdomen.

The ultrasound was performed by radiologist Charles Barax, MD, who reviewed both scans. He identified a “poorly visualized aortic aneurysm.” At this point, Dr. Conaboy referred Ms. Whitman to a vascular surgeon. But before this visit could take place, Whitman’s aneurysm ruptured, killing her. This was listed as the medical cause of death on the patient’s death certificate.

In April 2011, Ms. Reibenstein filed a claim against Dr. Barax, alleging that he had failed to gauge the severity of her mother’s condition. Ms. Reibenstein’s attorney wasn’t able to question Dr. Barax on the record until well after the state’s 2-year statute of limitations had elapsed. When he did testify, Dr. Barax explained that the scans’ image quality prevented him from determining whether Whitman’s aneurysm was rupturing or simply bleeding. Despite this, he insisted that he had warned Dr. Conaboy of the potential for Ms. Whitman’s aneurysm to rupture.

In March 2016, nearly 6 years after her mother’s death, Ms. Reibenstein filed a new lawsuit, this one against Dr. Conaboy, whom she alleged had failed to properly treat her mother’s condition. Dr. Conaboy, in turn, asked the court for summary judgment – that is, a judgment in his favor without a full trial – arguing that the state’s window for filing a wrongful-death claim had long since closed. For their part, Ms. Reibenstein and her attorney argued that the state’s 2-year statute of limitations didn’t start until the plaintiff had discovered the cause of her mother’s death.

Initially refusing to dismiss the case, a lower court reconsidered Dr. Conaboy’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that Ms. Reibenstein had failed to present any evidence of “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.” In other words, in the absence of any willful attempt on the part of the defendant to hide the legal cause of death, which includes “acts, omissions, or events having some causative connection with the death,” the statute of limitations remained in effect, and the defendant’s motion was thereby granted.

Continuing the legal seesaw, a state appeals court reversed the lower-court ruling. Noting that the Pennsylvania malpractice statute was ambiguous, the court argued that it should be interpreted in a way that protects plaintiffs who seek “fair compensation” but encounter willfully erected obstacles in pursuit of their claim.

Dr. Conaboy then took his case to the state’s highest court. In its majority decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court staked out a narrow definition of cause of death – one based on the death certificate – and ruled that only willful fraud in that document would constitute the necessary condition for halting the claim’s clock. Furthermore, the high court said, when lawmakers adopted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act in 2002, they did so with no guarantee “that all of the information necessary to sustain a claim will be gathered in the limitations period.”

Similarly, the court ruled, “at some point the clock must run out, lest health care providers remain subject to liability exposure indefinitely, with the prospect of a trial marred by the death or diminished memory of material witnesses or the loss of critical evidence.”

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

It started as a mountain biking excursion with two friends. When we drove into the trailhead parking lot, we saw several emergency vehicles. Then a helicopter passed overhead. As we got on our bikes, a police officer told us there’d been an accident out on the trail and to be careful because emergency personnel were going to be bringing in the patient. So we started the ride cautiously, ready to yield to emergency medical services.

Half a mile down the trail, we encountered another police officer. He asked if we would be willing to go back to get an oxygen tank from the ambulance and carry it out to the scene. The three of us turned around, went back to the parking lot and were able to snag a tank of oxygen. We put it in a backpack and biked out again.

We found the scene about a mile down the trail. An adult male was lying on his back in the dirt after a crash. His eyes were closed and he wasn’t moving except for occasional breaths. Six emergency medical personnel huddled around him, one assisting breaths with a bag mask. I didn’t introduce myself initially. I just listened to hear what was happening.

They were debating the dose of medication to give him in order to intubate. I knew the answer to that question, so I introduced myself. They were happy to have somebody else to assist.

They already had an IV in place and quite a lot of supplies. They administered the meds and the paramedic attempted to intubate through the mouth. Within a few seconds, she pulled the intubating blade out and said, “I’m not going to be able to get this. His tongue is too big.”

I took the blade myself and kneeled at the head of the victim. I made three attempts at intubating, and each time couldn’t view the landmarks. I wasn’t sure if his tongue was too large or if there was some traumatic injury. To make it more difficult, a lot of secretions clogged the airway. The paramedics had a portable suction, which was somewhat functional, but I still couldn’t visualize the landmarks.

I started asking about alternative methods of establishing an airway. They had an i-gel, which is a supraglottic device that goes into the back of the mouth. So, we placed it. But when we attached the bag, air still wasn’t getting into the lungs.

We removed it and put the bag mask back on. Now I was worried. We were having difficulty keeping his oxygen above 90%. I examined the chest and abdomen again. I was wondering if perhaps he was having some gastric distention, which can result from prolonged bagging, but that didn’t seem to be the case.

Bagging became progressively more difficult, and the oxygen slowly trended down through the 80s. Then the 70s. Heart rate dropped below 60 beats per minute. The trajectory was obvious.

That’s when I asked if they had the tools for a surgical airway.

No one thought the question was crazy. In fact, they pulled out a scalpel from an equipment bag.

But now I had to actually do it. I knelt next to the patient, trying to palpate the front of the neck to identify the correct location to cut. I had difficulty finding the appropriate landmarks there as well. Frustrating.

I glanced at the monitor. O₂ was now in the 60s. Later the paramedic told me the heart rate was down to 30.

One of the medics looked me in the eye and said, “We’ve got to do something. The time is now.” That helped me snap out of it and act. I made my large vertical incision on the front of the victim’s neck, which of course resulted in quite a bit of bleeding.

My two friends, who were watching, later told me this was the moment the intensity of the scene really increased (it was already pretty intense for me, thanks).

Next, I made the horizontal stab incision. Then I probed with my finger, but it seems the incision hadn’t reached the trachea. I had to make the stab much deeper than I would’ve thought.

And then air bubbled out through the blood. A paramedic was ready with the ET tube in hand and she put it through the incision. We attached the bag. We had air movement into the lungs, and within minutes the oxygen came up.

Not long after, the flight paramedics from the helicopter showed up, having jogged a mile through the woods. They seemed rather surprised to find a patient with a cricothyrotomy. We filled them in on the situation. Now we had to get the patient out of the woods (literally and figuratively).

The emergency responders had a really great transport device: A litter with one big wheel underneath in the middle so we could roll the patient down the mountain bike trail over rocks relatively safely. One person’s job was to hold the tube as we went since we didn’t have suture to hold it in place.

We got back to the parking lot and loaded him into the ambulance, which drove another mile to the helicopter, which then had to take him a hundred miles to the hospital.

To be honest, I thought the prognosis was poor. I suspected he had an intercranial bleed slowly squeezing his brain (that later turned out to not be the case). Even though we had established an airway, it took us so long to get him to the ambulance.

The director of the local EMS called me that evening and said the patient had made it to the hospital. I had never been a part of anything with this intensity. I definitely lost sleep over it. Partly just from the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome would be. But also second-guessing if I had done everything that I could have.

The story doesn’t quite end there, however.

A week later, a friend of the patient called me. He had recovered well and was going to be discharged from the hospital. He’d chosen to share the story with the media, and the local TV station was going to interview him. They had asked if I would agree to be interviewed.

After the local news story ran, it was kind of a media blitz. In came numerous media requests. But honestly, the portrayal of the story made me feel really weird. It was overly dramatized and not entirely accurate. It really didn’t sit well with me.

Friends all over the country saw the story, and here’s what they got from the coverage:

I was biking behind the patient when he crashed.

I had my own tools. Even the patient himself was told I used my own blade to make the incision.

The true story is what I just told you: A half-dozen emergency medical personnel were already there when I arrived. It was a combination of all of us – together – in the right place at the right time.

A month later, the patient and his family drove to the city where I live to take me out to lunch. It was emotional. There were plenty of tears. His wife and daughter were expressing a lot of gratitude and had some gifts for me. I was able to get his version of the story and learned some details. He had facial trauma in the past with some reconstruction. I realized that perhaps those anatomical changes affected my ability to do the intubation.

I hope to never again have to do this outside of the hospital. But I suppose I’m more prepared than ever now. I’ve reviewed my cricothyrotomy technique many times since then.

I was trained as a family doctor and did clinic and hospital medicine for several years. It was only in 2020 that I transitioned to doing emergency medicine work in a rural hospital. So, 2 years earlier, I’m not sure I would’ve been able to do what I did that day. To me, it was almost symbolic of the transition of my practice to emergency medicine.

I’m still in touch with the patient. We’ve talked about biking together. That hasn’t happened yet, but it may very well happen someday.

Jesse Coenen, MD, is an emergency medicine physician at Hayward Area Memorial Hospital in Hayward, Wisc.

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among people with type 2 diabetes who self-reported regularly using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events as well as all-cause death was significantly increased in a study of more than 19,000 people with type 2 diabetes in a prospective U.K. database.

During median follow-up of about 11 years, regular use of a PPI by people with type 2 diabetes was significantly linked with a 27% relative increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease, compared with nonuse of a PPI, after full adjustment for potential confounding variables.

The results also show PPI use was significantly linked after full adjustment with a 34% relative increase in MI, a 35% relative increase in heart failure, and a 30% relative increase in all-cause death, say a team of Chinese researchers in a recent report in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

PPIs are a medication class widely used in both over-the-counter and prescription formulations to reduce acid production in the stomach and to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease and other acid-related disorders. The PPI class includes such widely used agents as esomeprazole (Nexium), lansoprazole (Prevacid), and omeprazole (Prilosec).

The analyses in this report, which used data collected in the UK Biobank, are “rigorous,” and the findings of “a modest elevation of CVD risk are consistent with a growing number of observational studies in populations with and without diabetes,” commented Mary R. Rooney, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who focuses on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
 

Prior observational reports

For example, a report from a prospective, observational study of more than 4300 U.S. residents published in 2021 that Dr. Rooney coauthored documented that cumulative PPI exposure for more than 5 years was significantly linked with a twofold increase in the rate of CVD events, compared with people who did not use a PPI. (This analysis did not examine a possible effect of diabetes status.)

And in a separate prospective, observational study of more than 1,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes, initiation of PPI treatment was significantly linked with a 3.6-fold increased incidence of CVD events, compared with PPI nonuse.

However, Dr. Rooney cautioned that the role of PPI use in raising CVD events “is still an unresolved question. It is too soon to tell if PPI use in people with diabetes should trigger additional caution.” Findings are needed from prospective, randomized trials to determine more definitively whether PPIs play a causal role in the incidence of CVD events, she said in an interview.

U.S. practice often results in unwarranted prolongation of PPI treatment, said the authors of an editorial that accompanied the 2021 report by Dr. Rooney and coauthors.
 

Long-term PPI use threatens harm

“The practice of initiating stress ulcer prophylaxis [by administering a PPI] in critical care is common,” wrote the authors of the 2021 editorial, Nitin Malik, MD, and William S. Weintraub, MD. “Although it is data driven and well intentioned, the possibility of causing harm – if it is continued on a long-term basis after resolution of the acute illness – is palpable.”

The new analyses using UK Biobank data included 19,229 adults with type 2 diabetes and no preexisting coronary artery disease, MI, heart failure, or stroke. The cohort included 15,954 people (83%) who did not report using a PPI and 3,275 who currently used PPIs regularly. Study limitations include self-report as the only verification of PPI use and lack of information on type of PPI, dose size, or use duration.

The findings remained consistent in several sensitivity analyses, including a propensity score–matched analysis and after further adjustment for use of histamine₂ receptor antagonists, a drug class with indications similar to those for PPIs.

The authors of the report speculated that mechanisms that might link PPI use and increased CVD and mortality risk could include changes to the gut microbiota and possible interactions between PPIs and antiplatelet agents.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Rooney disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unanswered questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘More convincing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unanswered questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘More convincing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unanswered questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘More convincing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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