Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Short bursts of activity are approximately as effective for general health as longer sessions, especially for those who are mainly sedentary, according to several recently published studies.

If your fitness goals are greater, and you want to build muscle strength and endurance, compete in a 5K, or just look better in your swimsuit, you will need to do more. But for basic health, it appears that short bursts can help, the new research papers and experts suggest.

“Whether you accumulate activity in many short bouts versus one extended bout, the general health benefits tend to be similar,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said in an interview.

Current public health recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest doing at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week for health benefits, but this activity can be accumulated in any way over the week, she noted. Previous versions of the CDC guidelines on exercise suggested that physical activity bouts should be at least 10 minutes each, but the latest version of the guidelines acknowledges that bursts of less than 10 minutes may be beneficial.

However, “the activity or fitness level at which someone starts and the specific health goals matter,” Dr. Paluch continued. “Short bouts may be particularly beneficial for those least active to get moving more to improve their general wellness.”

The current federal physical activity guidelines are still worth striving for, and patients can work their way to this goal, accumulating 150 or more minutes in a way that works best for them, she added.

“There is a lack of research directly comparing individuals who consistently accumulate their activity in many short bouts versus single bouts over an extended period of time,” Dr. Paluch noted. From a public health perspective, since both short and long bouts have health benefits, the best physical activity is what fits into your life and helps build a lifelong habit.

The benefits of exercise for cardiovascular health are well documented. A review from Circulation published in 2003 summarized the benefits of regular physical activity on measures of cardiovascular health including reduction in body weight, blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, while increasing insulin sensitivity, good cholesterol, and muscular strength and function. In that review, author Jonathan N. Myers, PhD, now of Stanford (Calif.) University, noted that “one need not be a marathon runner or an elite athlete to derive significant benefits from physical activity.” In fact, “the greatest gains in terms of mortality are achieved when an individual goes from being sedentary to becoming moderately active.”

A recent large, population-based study showed the value of short bursts of exercise for those previously sedentary. In this study, published in Nature Medicine, a team in Australia used wearable fitness trackers to measure the health benefits of what researchers have named “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” or VILPA.

Some examples of VILPA include power walking on the way to work, climbing stairs, or even running around with your kids on the playground.

Specifically, individuals who engaged in the median VILPA frequency of three bursts of vigorous activity lasting 1-2 minutes showed a 38%-40% reduction in all-cause mortality risk and cancer mortality risk, and a 48%-49% reduction in cardiovascular mortality risk.

The researchers repeated their analysis for a group of 62,344 adults from the UK Biobank who reported regular vigorous physical activity (VPA). They found similar effects on mortality, based on 1,552 deaths reported.

These results suggest that VILPA may be a reasonable physical activity target, especially for people not able or willing to exercise more formally or intensely, the researchers noted.

“We have known for a long time that leisure-time exercise often reaches vigorous intensity and has many health benefits, but we understand less about the health potential of daily movement, especially activities done as part of daily living that reach vigorous intensity,” lead author Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre, said in an interview.

“As long as the heart rate goes up for a minute or 2 it will likely be vigorous activity,” Dr. Stamatakis said in an interview. “It is also important that clinicians effectively communicate how patients can know that they are reaching vigorous intensity,” he said.

Signs of vigorous intensity include increased heart rate and getting out of breath after about 20-40 seconds from the start of the VILPA burst. After about a minute of VILPA, the person doing it should be too out of breath to speak more than a few words comfortably, he said.
 

Data support value of any and all exercise

The Nature Medicine study supports other recent research showing the value of short, intense bursts of physical activity. A pair of recent studies also used fitness trackers to measure activity in adults and assess the benefits on outcomes including death and heart disease.

One of these studies, which was published in the European Heart Journal, also used fitness trackers to measure physical activity at moderate and vigorous levels. The researchers found that individuals who performed at least 20% of their physical activity at a moderate to high level, such as by doing brisk walking in lieu of strolling had a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those whose daily activity included less than 20% at a moderate or intense level.

In another study from the European Heart Journal, researchers found that short bursts of vigorous physical activity of 2 minutes or less adding up to 15-20 minutes per week was enough to reduce mortality by as much as 40%.

Plus, a meta-analysis published in the Lancet showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with an increase in the number of daily steps, although the impact of stepping rate on mortality was inconsistent.

“Many studies have investigated the health benefits of physical activity, but not the importance of these difficult-to-capture VILPA bouts that accrue during the course of normal activities of daily living,” Lee Stoner, PhD, an exercise physiologist and director of the Cardiometabolic Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Dr. Stoner, who was not involved in the Nature Medicine study, said he was not surprised by the overall finding that doing short bursts of activity impacted mortality and cardiovascular disease, but was slightly surprised by the strength of the evidence.

“The referent group in the Nature Medicine study were those accruing no VILPA”, likely meaning they were very inactive,” Dr. Stoner said and added that he thinks this demonstrates the value of VILPA.

Even without immediately meeting the specific numbers recommended by the CDC, “any physical activity is better than none, especially if vigorous, and VILPA can be built into normal daily routines,” Dr. Stoner added.
 

What’s missing in short bursts?

Short bursts of activity do have their limits when it comes to overall fitness, said Dr. Stoner.

“Endurance will not be improved as much through short bursts, because such activities are unlikely to be as effective at empowering the mitochondria – the batteries keeping our cells running, including skeletal muscle cells,” he said. “Additionally, the vigorous bouts are unlikely to be as effective at improving muscular strength and endurance. For this, it is recommended that we engage each muscle group in strengthening exercises two times per week.”

However, Dr. Stoner agreed that prescribing short bursts of intense activity as part of daily living may be a great way to get people started with exercise.

“The key is to remove barriers to physical activity pursuit, then focusing on long-term routine rather than short-term gain,” he said. “Individuals are better served if they focus on goals other than weight loss, for which physical activity or exercise may not be the solution. Rather, being physically active can improve vigor, make daily activities simpler, and improve cognitive abilities,” and any physical activity is one of the most effective solutions for regulating blood glucose levels and improving cardiovascular risk factors.
 

Make it routine – and fun

To benefit from physical activity, cultivating and sustaining a long-term routine is key, said Dr. Stoner, whose research has focused on sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease. Whatever the activity is, shorter bursts, or longer bouts or both, it is essential that individuals figure out activities that they enjoy if they want to create sustained behavior, and thus health change, Gabriel Zieff, MA, a doctoral candidate in Dr. Stoner’s Cardiometabolic Lab, who conducts studies on exercise, noted in an interview.

“We exercise enthusiasts and researchers are often hyperfocused on whether this duration or that duration is better, whether this intensity or that intensity is better,” but at the end of the day, it is the enjoyment factor that often predicts sustained behavior change, and should be part of discussions with patients to help reduce sedentary behavior and promote activity, Mr. Zieff said.
 

Short bouts can encourage hesitant exercisers

“To best support health, clinicians should consider taking a few seconds to ask patients about their physical activity levels,” said Dr. Paluch, who was the lead author on the Lancet meta-analysis of daily steps. In that study, Dr. Paluch and colleagues found that taking more steps each day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality. However, that study did not measure step rate.

Clinicians can emphasize that health benefits do not require an hour-long exercise routine and special equipment, and moving more, even in shorts bursts of activity can have meaningful associations with health, particularly for those who are less active, she said.

The recent studies on short bursts of activity agree that “some physical activity is better than none and adults should move more throughout the day in whatever way makes sense to them and fits best into their lives,” said Dr. Paluch. “For example, opting for the stairs instead of the elevator, a brisk walk to the bus stop, a short game of hide and seek with the children or grandchildren – anything that gets your body moving more, even if briefly. Making simple lifestyle changes is often easier in small bites. In time, this can grow into long-term habits, ultimately leading to an overall active lifestyle that supports living healthier for longer.”

The Nature Medicine study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Several coauthors were supported by the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Novo Nordisk, the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, the Alan Turing Institute, the British Heart Foundation, and Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation. Dr. Paluch and Dr. Stoner had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Fitbit users who took 10,700 steps a day had a 44% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who only took 6,000 steps a day, regardless of age, sex, or body mass index, in an almost 4-year study.

The protective effect of daily step count on type 2 diabetes risk remained after adjusting for smoking and sedentary time.

Taking more steps per day was also associated with less risk of developing type 2 diabetes in different subgroups of physical activity intensity.

“Our data shows the importance of moving your body every day to lower your risk of [type 2] diabetes,” said the lead author of the research, Andrew S. Perry, MD. The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Despite low baseline risk, benefit from increased physical activity

The study was conducted in more than 5,000 participants in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us research program who had a median age of 51 and were generally overweight (median BMI 27.8 kg/m²). Three quarters were women and 89% were White.

It used an innovative approach in a real-world population, said Dr. Perry, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

The individuals in this cohort had relatively few risk factors, so it was not surprising that the incidence of type 2 diabetes overall was low (2%), the researchers note. “Yet, despite being low risk, we still detected a signal of benefit from increased” physical activity, Dr. Perry and colleagues write.

The individuals had a median of 16 very active minutes/day, which corresponds to 112 very active minutes/week (ie, less than the guideline-recommended 150 minutes of physical activity/week).

“These results indicate that amounts of physical activity are correlated with lower risk of [type 2] diabetes, regardless of the intensity level, and even at amounts less than current guidelines recommend,” the researchers summarize.
 

Physical activity tracked over close to 4 years

Prior studies of the relationship between physical activity and type 2 diabetes risk relied primarily on questionnaires that asked people about physical activity at one point in time.

The researchers aimed to examine this association over time, in a contemporary cohort of Fitbit users who participated in the All of Us program.

From 12,781 participants with Fitbit data between 2010 and 2021, they identified 5,677 individuals who were at least 18 years old and had linked electronic health record data, no diabetes at baseline, at least 15 days of Fitbit data in the initial monitoring period, and at least 180 days of follow-up.

The Fitbit counts steps, and it also uses an algorithm to quantify physical activity intensity as lightly active (1.5-3 metabolic equivalent task (METs), fairly active (3-6 METs), and very active (> 6 METs).

During a median 3.8-year follow-up, participants made a median of 7,924 steps/day and were “fairly active” for a median of 16 minutes/day.

They found 97 new cases of type 2 diabetes over a follow-up of 4 years in the dataset.

The predicted cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes at 5 years was 0.8% for individuals who walked 13,245 steps/day (90th percentile) vs. 2.3% for those who walked 4,301 steps/day (10th percentile).

“We hope to study more diverse populations in future studies to confirm the generalizability of these findings,” Dr. Perry said.

This study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Perry reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the original article.

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

Fitbit users who took 10,700 steps a day had a 44% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who only took 6,000 steps a day, regardless of age, sex, or body mass index, in an almost 4-year study.

The protective effect of daily step count on type 2 diabetes risk remained after adjusting for smoking and sedentary time.

Taking more steps per day was also associated with less risk of developing type 2 diabetes in different subgroups of physical activity intensity.

“Our data shows the importance of moving your body every day to lower your risk of [type 2] diabetes,” said the lead author of the research, Andrew S. Perry, MD. The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Despite low baseline risk, benefit from increased physical activity

The study was conducted in more than 5,000 participants in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us research program who had a median age of 51 and were generally overweight (median BMI 27.8 kg/m²). Three quarters were women and 89% were White.

It used an innovative approach in a real-world population, said Dr. Perry, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

The individuals in this cohort had relatively few risk factors, so it was not surprising that the incidence of type 2 diabetes overall was low (2%), the researchers note. “Yet, despite being low risk, we still detected a signal of benefit from increased” physical activity, Dr. Perry and colleagues write.

The individuals had a median of 16 very active minutes/day, which corresponds to 112 very active minutes/week (ie, less than the guideline-recommended 150 minutes of physical activity/week).

“These results indicate that amounts of physical activity are correlated with lower risk of [type 2] diabetes, regardless of the intensity level, and even at amounts less than current guidelines recommend,” the researchers summarize.
 

Physical activity tracked over close to 4 years

Prior studies of the relationship between physical activity and type 2 diabetes risk relied primarily on questionnaires that asked people about physical activity at one point in time.

The researchers aimed to examine this association over time, in a contemporary cohort of Fitbit users who participated in the All of Us program.

From 12,781 participants with Fitbit data between 2010 and 2021, they identified 5,677 individuals who were at least 18 years old and had linked electronic health record data, no diabetes at baseline, at least 15 days of Fitbit data in the initial monitoring period, and at least 180 days of follow-up.

The Fitbit counts steps, and it also uses an algorithm to quantify physical activity intensity as lightly active (1.5-3 metabolic equivalent task (METs), fairly active (3-6 METs), and very active (> 6 METs).

During a median 3.8-year follow-up, participants made a median of 7,924 steps/day and were “fairly active” for a median of 16 minutes/day.

They found 97 new cases of type 2 diabetes over a follow-up of 4 years in the dataset.

The predicted cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes at 5 years was 0.8% for individuals who walked 13,245 steps/day (90th percentile) vs. 2.3% for those who walked 4,301 steps/day (10th percentile).

“We hope to study more diverse populations in future studies to confirm the generalizability of these findings,” Dr. Perry said.

This study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Perry reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the original article.

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

Fitbit users who took 10,700 steps a day had a 44% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who only took 6,000 steps a day, regardless of age, sex, or body mass index, in an almost 4-year study.

The protective effect of daily step count on type 2 diabetes risk remained after adjusting for smoking and sedentary time.

Taking more steps per day was also associated with less risk of developing type 2 diabetes in different subgroups of physical activity intensity.

“Our data shows the importance of moving your body every day to lower your risk of [type 2] diabetes,” said the lead author of the research, Andrew S. Perry, MD. The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Despite low baseline risk, benefit from increased physical activity

The study was conducted in more than 5,000 participants in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us research program who had a median age of 51 and were generally overweight (median BMI 27.8 kg/m²). Three quarters were women and 89% were White.

It used an innovative approach in a real-world population, said Dr. Perry, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

The individuals in this cohort had relatively few risk factors, so it was not surprising that the incidence of type 2 diabetes overall was low (2%), the researchers note. “Yet, despite being low risk, we still detected a signal of benefit from increased” physical activity, Dr. Perry and colleagues write.

The individuals had a median of 16 very active minutes/day, which corresponds to 112 very active minutes/week (ie, less than the guideline-recommended 150 minutes of physical activity/week).

“These results indicate that amounts of physical activity are correlated with lower risk of [type 2] diabetes, regardless of the intensity level, and even at amounts less than current guidelines recommend,” the researchers summarize.
 

Physical activity tracked over close to 4 years

Prior studies of the relationship between physical activity and type 2 diabetes risk relied primarily on questionnaires that asked people about physical activity at one point in time.

The researchers aimed to examine this association over time, in a contemporary cohort of Fitbit users who participated in the All of Us program.

From 12,781 participants with Fitbit data between 2010 and 2021, they identified 5,677 individuals who were at least 18 years old and had linked electronic health record data, no diabetes at baseline, at least 15 days of Fitbit data in the initial monitoring period, and at least 180 days of follow-up.

The Fitbit counts steps, and it also uses an algorithm to quantify physical activity intensity as lightly active (1.5-3 metabolic equivalent task (METs), fairly active (3-6 METs), and very active (> 6 METs).

During a median 3.8-year follow-up, participants made a median of 7,924 steps/day and were “fairly active” for a median of 16 minutes/day.

They found 97 new cases of type 2 diabetes over a follow-up of 4 years in the dataset.

The predicted cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes at 5 years was 0.8% for individuals who walked 13,245 steps/day (90th percentile) vs. 2.3% for those who walked 4,301 steps/day (10th percentile).

“We hope to study more diverse populations in future studies to confirm the generalizability of these findings,” Dr. Perry said.

This study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Perry reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the original article.

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s a story perhaps more appropriate for Halloween than for the festive holiday season, given its scary implications. Four Omicron subvariants of the virus that causes COVID-19 will be the most common strains going from person to person in the winter of 2022-2023, new research predicts.

Not too dire so far, until the researchers’ other findings are considered.

The BQ.1, BQ1.1, XBB, and XBB.1 subvariants are the most resistant to neutralizing antibodies, researcher Qian Wang, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published online in the journal Cell. This means people have no or “markedly reduced” protection against infection from these four strains, even if they’ve already had COVID-19 or are vaccinated and boosted multiple times, including with a bivalent vaccine.

On top of that, all available monoclonal antibody treatments are mostly or completely ineffective against these subvariants.

What does that mean for the immediate future? The findings are definitely “worrisome,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

But evidence from other countries, specifically Singapore and France, show that at least two of these variants turned out not to be as damaging as expected, likely because of high numbers of people vaccinated or who survived previous infections, he said.

Still, there is little to celebrate in the new findings, except that COVID-19 vaccinations and prior infections can still reduce the risk for serious outcomes such as hospitalization and death, the researchers wrote.

In fact, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released on Dec. 16 shows that people who have received four shots of the original COVID-19 vaccines as well as the bivalent booster were 57% less likely to visit an urgent care clinic or emergency room, regardless of age. 

It comes at a time when BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 account for about 70% of the circulating variants, data show. In addition, hospitalizations are up 18% over the past 2 weeks and COVID-19 deaths are up 50% nationwide, The New York Times reported.

Globally, in many places, an “immunity wall” that has been built, Dr. Topol said. That may not be the case in the United States.  

“The problem in the United States, making it harder to predict, is that we have a very low rate of recent boosters, in the past 6 months, especially in seniors,” he said. For example, only 36% of Americans aged 65 years and older, the group with highest risk, have received an updated bivalent booster.
 

An evolving virus

The subvariants are successfully replacing BA.5, which reigned as one of the most common Omicron variants over the past year. The latest CDC data show that BA.5 now accounts for only about 10% of the circulating virus. The researchers wrote: “This rapid replacement of virus strains is raising the specter of yet another wave of infections in the coming months.”

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 evolved directly from BA.5 – adding more and some novel mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. XBB and XBB.1 are the “offspring” of a combination of two other strains, known as BJ.1 and BA.2.75.

The story sounds familiar to the researchers. “The rapid rise of these subvariants and their extensive array of spike mutations are reminiscent of the appearance of the first Omicron variant last year, thus raising concerns that they may further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics,” they wrote. “We now report findings that indicate that such concerns are, sadly, justified, especially so for the XBB and XBB.1 subvariants.”

To figure out how effective existing antibodies could be against these newer subvariants, Dr. Wang and colleagues used blood samples from five groups of people. They tested serum from people who had three doses of the original COVID-19 vaccine, four doses of the original vaccine, those who received a bivalent booster, people who experienced a breakthrough infection with the BA.2 Omicron variant, and those who had a breakthrough with a BA.4 or BA.5 variant.

Adding the new subvariants to these serum samples revealed that the existing antibodies in the blood were ineffective at wiping out or neutralizing BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.

The BQ.1 subvariant was six times more resistant to antibodies than BA.5, its parent strain, and XBB.1 was 63 times more resistant compared with its predecessor, BA.2.

This shift in the ability of vaccines to stop the subvariants “is particularly concerning,” the researchers wrote.
 

Wiping out treatments too

Dr. Wang and colleagues also tested how well a panel of 23 different monoclonal antibody drugs might work against the four subvariants. The therapies all worked well against the original Omicron variant and included some approved for use through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) program at the time of the study.

They found that 19 of these 23 monoclonal antibodies lost effectiveness “greatly or completely” against XBB and XBB.1, for example.

This is not the first time that monoclonal antibody therapies have gone from effective to ineffective. Previous variants have come out that no longer responded to treatment with bamlanivimab, etesevimab, imdevimab, casirivimab, tixagevimab, cilgavimab, and sotrovimab. Bebtelovimab now joins this list and is no longer available from Eli Lilly under EUA because of this lack of effectiveness.

The lack of an effective monoclonal antibody treatment “poses a serious problem for millions of immunocompromised individuals who do not respond robustly to COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers wrote, adding that “the urgent need to develop active monoclonal antibodies for clinical use is obvious.”

A limitation of the study is that the work is done in blood samples. The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against the BQ and XBB subvariants should be evaluated in people in clinical studies, the authors noted.

Also, the current study looked at how well antibodies could neutralize the viral strains, but future research, they added, should look at how well “cellular immunity” or other aspects of the immune system might protect people.

Going forward, the challenge remains to develop vaccines and treatments that offer broad protection as the coronavirus continues to evolve.

In an alarming ending, the researchers wrote: “We have collectively chased after SARS-CoV-2 variants for over 2 years, and yet, the virus continues to evolve and evade.”

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

It’s beginning to look less like an epidemic as seasonal flu activity “appears to be declining in some areas,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Declines in a few states and territories were enough to lower national activity, as measured by outpatient visits for influenza-like illness, for the second consecutive week. This reduced the weekly number of hospital admissions for the first time in the 2022-2023 season, according to the CDC influenza division’s weekly FluView report.

Flu-related hospital admissions slipped to about 23,500 during the week of Dec. 4-10, after topping 26,000 the week before, based on data reported by 5,000 hospitals from all states and territories.

The weekly hospitalization rate tumbled from 8 per 100,000 people to 4.5 per 100,000, which was still higher than any other December rate from all previous seasons going back to 2009-10, CDC data shows. 

Visits for flu-like illness represented 6.9% of all outpatient visits reported to the CDC during the week of Dec. 4-10. The rate reached 7.5% during the last full week of November before dropping to 7.3%, the CDC said.

There were 28 states or territories with “very high” activity for the latest reporting week, compared with 32 the previous week. Eight states – Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington – and New York City were at the very highest level on the CDC’s 1-13 scale of activity, compared with 14 areas the week before, the agency reported.

So far for the 2022-2023 season, the CDC estimated there have been at least 15 million cases of the flu, 150,000 hospitalizations, and 9,300 deaths. Among those deaths have been 30 reported in children, compared with 44 for the entire 2021-22 season and just 1 for 2020-21.

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

It’s beginning to look less like an epidemic as seasonal flu activity “appears to be declining in some areas,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Declines in a few states and territories were enough to lower national activity, as measured by outpatient visits for influenza-like illness, for the second consecutive week. This reduced the weekly number of hospital admissions for the first time in the 2022-2023 season, according to the CDC influenza division’s weekly FluView report.

Flu-related hospital admissions slipped to about 23,500 during the week of Dec. 4-10, after topping 26,000 the week before, based on data reported by 5,000 hospitals from all states and territories.

The weekly hospitalization rate tumbled from 8 per 100,000 people to 4.5 per 100,000, which was still higher than any other December rate from all previous seasons going back to 2009-10, CDC data shows. 

Visits for flu-like illness represented 6.9% of all outpatient visits reported to the CDC during the week of Dec. 4-10. The rate reached 7.5% during the last full week of November before dropping to 7.3%, the CDC said.

There were 28 states or territories with “very high” activity for the latest reporting week, compared with 32 the previous week. Eight states – Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington – and New York City were at the very highest level on the CDC’s 1-13 scale of activity, compared with 14 areas the week before, the agency reported.

So far for the 2022-2023 season, the CDC estimated there have been at least 15 million cases of the flu, 150,000 hospitalizations, and 9,300 deaths. Among those deaths have been 30 reported in children, compared with 44 for the entire 2021-22 season and just 1 for 2020-21.

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

It’s beginning to look less like an epidemic as seasonal flu activity “appears to be declining in some areas,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Declines in a few states and territories were enough to lower national activity, as measured by outpatient visits for influenza-like illness, for the second consecutive week. This reduced the weekly number of hospital admissions for the first time in the 2022-2023 season, according to the CDC influenza division’s weekly FluView report.

Flu-related hospital admissions slipped to about 23,500 during the week of Dec. 4-10, after topping 26,000 the week before, based on data reported by 5,000 hospitals from all states and territories.

The weekly hospitalization rate tumbled from 8 per 100,000 people to 4.5 per 100,000, which was still higher than any other December rate from all previous seasons going back to 2009-10, CDC data shows. 

Visits for flu-like illness represented 6.9% of all outpatient visits reported to the CDC during the week of Dec. 4-10. The rate reached 7.5% during the last full week of November before dropping to 7.3%, the CDC said.

There were 28 states or territories with “very high” activity for the latest reporting week, compared with 32 the previous week. Eight states – Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington – and New York City were at the very highest level on the CDC’s 1-13 scale of activity, compared with 14 areas the week before, the agency reported.

So far for the 2022-2023 season, the CDC estimated there have been at least 15 million cases of the flu, 150,000 hospitalizations, and 9,300 deaths. Among those deaths have been 30 reported in children, compared with 44 for the entire 2021-22 season and just 1 for 2020-21.

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

Outpatient behavioral health treatment (OPBHT) for patients newly diagnosed with depression, substance use disorder, or other behavioral health condition (BHC) is cost-effective.

Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.

“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Common, undertreated

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.

In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.

About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.

About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.

The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.

Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.

Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
 

Dose-response effect

In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.

“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.

“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.

Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.

However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.

“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.

“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient behavioral health treatment (OPBHT) for patients newly diagnosed with depression, substance use disorder, or other behavioral health condition (BHC) is cost-effective.

Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.

“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Common, undertreated

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.

In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.

About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.

About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.

The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.

Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.

Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
 

Dose-response effect

In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.

“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.

“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.

Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.

However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.

“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.

“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient behavioral health treatment (OPBHT) for patients newly diagnosed with depression, substance use disorder, or other behavioral health condition (BHC) is cost-effective.

Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.

“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Common, undertreated

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.

In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.

About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.

About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.

The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.

Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.

Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
 

Dose-response effect

In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.

“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.

“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.

Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.

However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.

“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.

“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

We are coming to the end of the year, which always makes me think about getting older. Despite the fact that aging is, definitionally, inexorable, we continue to search for ways to avoid the losses that come with age, whether that is strength, beauty, or our cognitive powers. Much like the search for the fountain of youth, many promising leads have ultimately led to dead ends. And yet, I had high hopes for a trial that focused on two cornerstones of wellness – exercise and mindfulness – to address the subjective loss of memory that comes with aging. Alas, meditation and exercise do not appear to be the fountain of youth.

I’m talking about this study, appearing in JAMA, known as the MEDEX trial.

It’s a clever design: a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial where participants could be randomized to a mindfulness intervention, an exercise intervention, both, or neither.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

In this manner, you can test multiple hypotheses exploiting a shared control group. Or as a mentor of mine used to say, you get two trials for the price of one and a half.

The participants were older adults, aged 65-84, living in the community. They had to be relatively sedentary at baseline and not engaging in mindfulness practices. They had to subjectively report some memory or concentration issues but had to be cognitively intact, based on a standard dementia screening test. In other words, these are your average older people who are worried that they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

The interventions themselves were fairly intense. The exercise group had instructor-led sessions for 90 minutes twice a week for the first 6 months of the study, once a week thereafter. And participants were encouraged to exercise at home such that they had a total of 300 minutes of weekly exercise.

The mindfulness program was characterized by eight weekly classes of 2.5 hours each as well as a half-day retreat to teach the tenets of mindfulness and meditation, with monthly refreshers thereafter. Participants were instructed to meditate for 60 minutes a day in addition to the classes.

For the 144 people who were randomized to both meditation and exercise, this trial amounted to something of a part-time job. So you might think that adherence to the interventions was low, but apparently that’s not the case. Attendance to the mindfulness classes was over 90%, and over 80% for the exercise classes. And diary-based reporting of home efforts was also pretty good.

The control group wasn’t left to their own devices. Recognizing that the community aspect of exercise or mindfulness classes might convey a benefit independent of the actual exercise or mindfulness, the control group met on a similar schedule to discuss health education, but no mention of exercise or mindfulness occurred in that setting.

The primary outcome was change in memory and executive function scores across a battery of neuropsychologic testing, but the story is told in just a few pictures.

Memory scores improved in all three groups – mindfulness, exercise, and health education – over time. Cognitive composite score improved in all three groups similarly. There was no synergistic effect of mindfulness and exercise either. Basically, everyone got a bit better.

But the study did way more than look at scores on tests. Researchers used MRI to measure brain anatomic outcomes as well. And the surprising thing is that virtually none of these outcomes were different between the groups either.

Hippocampal volume decreased a bit in all the groups. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume was flat. There was no change in scores measuring tasks of daily living.

When you see negative results like this, right away you worry that the intervention wasn’t properly delivered. Were these people really exercising and meditating? Well, the authors showed that individuals randomized to exercise, at least, had less sleep latency, greater aerobic fitness, and greater strength. So we know something was happening.

They then asked, would the people in the exercise group with the greatest changes in those physiologic parameters show some improvement in cognitive parameters? In other words, we know you were exercising because you got stronger and are sleeping better; is your memory better? The answer? Surprisingly, still no. Even in that honestly somewhat cherry-picked group, the interventions had no effect.

Could it be that the control was inappropriate, that the “health education” intervention was actually so helpful that it obscured the benefits of exercise and meditation? After all, cognitive scores did improve in all groups. The authors doubt it. They say they think the improvement in cognitive scores reflects the fact that patients had learned a bit about how to take the tests. This is pretty common in the neuropsychiatric literature.

So here we are and I just want to say, well, shoot. This is not the result I wanted. And I think the reason I’m so disappointed is because aging and the loss of cognitive faculties that comes with aging are just sort of scary. We are all looking for some control over that fear, and how nice it would be to be able to tell ourselves not to worry – that we won’t have those problems as we get older because we exercise, or meditate, or drink red wine, or don’t drink wine, or whatever. And while I have no doubt that staying healthier physically will keep you healthier mentally, it may take more than one simple thing to move the needle.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

We are coming to the end of the year, which always makes me think about getting older. Despite the fact that aging is, definitionally, inexorable, we continue to search for ways to avoid the losses that come with age, whether that is strength, beauty, or our cognitive powers. Much like the search for the fountain of youth, many promising leads have ultimately led to dead ends. And yet, I had high hopes for a trial that focused on two cornerstones of wellness – exercise and mindfulness – to address the subjective loss of memory that comes with aging. Alas, meditation and exercise do not appear to be the fountain of youth.

I’m talking about this study, appearing in JAMA, known as the MEDEX trial.

It’s a clever design: a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial where participants could be randomized to a mindfulness intervention, an exercise intervention, both, or neither.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

In this manner, you can test multiple hypotheses exploiting a shared control group. Or as a mentor of mine used to say, you get two trials for the price of one and a half.

The participants were older adults, aged 65-84, living in the community. They had to be relatively sedentary at baseline and not engaging in mindfulness practices. They had to subjectively report some memory or concentration issues but had to be cognitively intact, based on a standard dementia screening test. In other words, these are your average older people who are worried that they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

The interventions themselves were fairly intense. The exercise group had instructor-led sessions for 90 minutes twice a week for the first 6 months of the study, once a week thereafter. And participants were encouraged to exercise at home such that they had a total of 300 minutes of weekly exercise.

The mindfulness program was characterized by eight weekly classes of 2.5 hours each as well as a half-day retreat to teach the tenets of mindfulness and meditation, with monthly refreshers thereafter. Participants were instructed to meditate for 60 minutes a day in addition to the classes.

For the 144 people who were randomized to both meditation and exercise, this trial amounted to something of a part-time job. So you might think that adherence to the interventions was low, but apparently that’s not the case. Attendance to the mindfulness classes was over 90%, and over 80% for the exercise classes. And diary-based reporting of home efforts was also pretty good.

The control group wasn’t left to their own devices. Recognizing that the community aspect of exercise or mindfulness classes might convey a benefit independent of the actual exercise or mindfulness, the control group met on a similar schedule to discuss health education, but no mention of exercise or mindfulness occurred in that setting.

The primary outcome was change in memory and executive function scores across a battery of neuropsychologic testing, but the story is told in just a few pictures.

Memory scores improved in all three groups – mindfulness, exercise, and health education – over time. Cognitive composite score improved in all three groups similarly. There was no synergistic effect of mindfulness and exercise either. Basically, everyone got a bit better.

But the study did way more than look at scores on tests. Researchers used MRI to measure brain anatomic outcomes as well. And the surprising thing is that virtually none of these outcomes were different between the groups either.

Hippocampal volume decreased a bit in all the groups. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume was flat. There was no change in scores measuring tasks of daily living.

When you see negative results like this, right away you worry that the intervention wasn’t properly delivered. Were these people really exercising and meditating? Well, the authors showed that individuals randomized to exercise, at least, had less sleep latency, greater aerobic fitness, and greater strength. So we know something was happening.

They then asked, would the people in the exercise group with the greatest changes in those physiologic parameters show some improvement in cognitive parameters? In other words, we know you were exercising because you got stronger and are sleeping better; is your memory better? The answer? Surprisingly, still no. Even in that honestly somewhat cherry-picked group, the interventions had no effect.

Could it be that the control was inappropriate, that the “health education” intervention was actually so helpful that it obscured the benefits of exercise and meditation? After all, cognitive scores did improve in all groups. The authors doubt it. They say they think the improvement in cognitive scores reflects the fact that patients had learned a bit about how to take the tests. This is pretty common in the neuropsychiatric literature.

So here we are and I just want to say, well, shoot. This is not the result I wanted. And I think the reason I’m so disappointed is because aging and the loss of cognitive faculties that comes with aging are just sort of scary. We are all looking for some control over that fear, and how nice it would be to be able to tell ourselves not to worry – that we won’t have those problems as we get older because we exercise, or meditate, or drink red wine, or don’t drink wine, or whatever. And while I have no doubt that staying healthier physically will keep you healthier mentally, it may take more than one simple thing to move the needle.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

We are coming to the end of the year, which always makes me think about getting older. Despite the fact that aging is, definitionally, inexorable, we continue to search for ways to avoid the losses that come with age, whether that is strength, beauty, or our cognitive powers. Much like the search for the fountain of youth, many promising leads have ultimately led to dead ends. And yet, I had high hopes for a trial that focused on two cornerstones of wellness – exercise and mindfulness – to address the subjective loss of memory that comes with aging. Alas, meditation and exercise do not appear to be the fountain of youth.

I’m talking about this study, appearing in JAMA, known as the MEDEX trial.

It’s a clever design: a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial where participants could be randomized to a mindfulness intervention, an exercise intervention, both, or neither.

Courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

In this manner, you can test multiple hypotheses exploiting a shared control group. Or as a mentor of mine used to say, you get two trials for the price of one and a half.

The participants were older adults, aged 65-84, living in the community. They had to be relatively sedentary at baseline and not engaging in mindfulness practices. They had to subjectively report some memory or concentration issues but had to be cognitively intact, based on a standard dementia screening test. In other words, these are your average older people who are worried that they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

The interventions themselves were fairly intense. The exercise group had instructor-led sessions for 90 minutes twice a week for the first 6 months of the study, once a week thereafter. And participants were encouraged to exercise at home such that they had a total of 300 minutes of weekly exercise.

The mindfulness program was characterized by eight weekly classes of 2.5 hours each as well as a half-day retreat to teach the tenets of mindfulness and meditation, with monthly refreshers thereafter. Participants were instructed to meditate for 60 minutes a day in addition to the classes.

For the 144 people who were randomized to both meditation and exercise, this trial amounted to something of a part-time job. So you might think that adherence to the interventions was low, but apparently that’s not the case. Attendance to the mindfulness classes was over 90%, and over 80% for the exercise classes. And diary-based reporting of home efforts was also pretty good.

The control group wasn’t left to their own devices. Recognizing that the community aspect of exercise or mindfulness classes might convey a benefit independent of the actual exercise or mindfulness, the control group met on a similar schedule to discuss health education, but no mention of exercise or mindfulness occurred in that setting.

The primary outcome was change in memory and executive function scores across a battery of neuropsychologic testing, but the story is told in just a few pictures.

Memory scores improved in all three groups – mindfulness, exercise, and health education – over time. Cognitive composite score improved in all three groups similarly. There was no synergistic effect of mindfulness and exercise either. Basically, everyone got a bit better.

But the study did way more than look at scores on tests. Researchers used MRI to measure brain anatomic outcomes as well. And the surprising thing is that virtually none of these outcomes were different between the groups either.

Hippocampal volume decreased a bit in all the groups. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume was flat. There was no change in scores measuring tasks of daily living.

When you see negative results like this, right away you worry that the intervention wasn’t properly delivered. Were these people really exercising and meditating? Well, the authors showed that individuals randomized to exercise, at least, had less sleep latency, greater aerobic fitness, and greater strength. So we know something was happening.

They then asked, would the people in the exercise group with the greatest changes in those physiologic parameters show some improvement in cognitive parameters? In other words, we know you were exercising because you got stronger and are sleeping better; is your memory better? The answer? Surprisingly, still no. Even in that honestly somewhat cherry-picked group, the interventions had no effect.

Could it be that the control was inappropriate, that the “health education” intervention was actually so helpful that it obscured the benefits of exercise and meditation? After all, cognitive scores did improve in all groups. The authors doubt it. They say they think the improvement in cognitive scores reflects the fact that patients had learned a bit about how to take the tests. This is pretty common in the neuropsychiatric literature.

So here we are and I just want to say, well, shoot. This is not the result I wanted. And I think the reason I’m so disappointed is because aging and the loss of cognitive faculties that comes with aging are just sort of scary. We are all looking for some control over that fear, and how nice it would be to be able to tell ourselves not to worry – that we won’t have those problems as we get older because we exercise, or meditate, or drink red wine, or don’t drink wine, or whatever. And while I have no doubt that staying healthier physically will keep you healthier mentally, it may take more than one simple thing to move the needle.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This article was originally published December 10 on Medscape editor-in-chief Eric Topol’s Substack ”Ground Truths.”

There are many holy grails in medicine, with failure after failure, like finding a way to prevent Alzheimer’s disease or a noninvasive means for accurately measuring ambulatory blood pressure. But one of the biggest and most daunting has been finding drugs that can tackle obesity – achieving a substantial amount of weight loss without serious side effects. Many attempts to get there now fill a graveyard of failed drugs, such as fen-phen in the 1990s when a single small study of this drug combination in 121 people unleashed millions of prescriptions, some leading to serious heart valve lesions that resulted in withdrawal of the drug in 1995. The drug rimonabant, an endocannabinoid receptor blocker (think of blocking the munchies after marijuana) looked encouraging in randomized trials. However, subsequently, in a trial that I led of nearly 19,000 participants in 42 countries around the world, there was a significant excess of depression, neuropsychiatric side-effects and suicidal ideation which spelled the end of that drug’s life.

In the United States, where there had not been an antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2014, Wegovy (semaglutide), a once-weekly injection was approved in June 2021. The same drug, at a lower dose, is known as Ozempic (as in O-O-O, Ozempic, the ubiquitous commercial that you undoubtedly hear and see on TV) and had already been approved in January 2020 for improving glucose regulation in diabetes. The next drug on fast track at FDA to be imminently approved is tirzepatide (Mounjaro) following its approval for diabetes in May 2022. It is noteworthy that the discovery of these drugs for weight loss was serendipitous: they were being developed for improving glucose regulation and unexpectedly were found to achieve significant weight reduction.

Both semaglutide and tirzepatide underwent randomized, placebo-controlled trials for obesity, with marked reduction of weight as shown below. Tirzepatide at dose of 10-15 mg per week achieved greater than 20% body weight reduction. Semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg achieved about 17% reduction. These per cent changes in body weight are 7-9 fold more than seen with placebo (2%-3% reduction). Note: these levels of percent body-weight reduction resemble what is typically achieved with the different types of bariatric surgery, such as gastric bypass.

How do these drugs work?

These are peptides in the class of incretins, mimicking gut hormones that are secreted after food intake which stimulate insulin secretion.

How they are given and practical considerations

For semaglutide, which has FDA approval, the indication is a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater than 27 and a weight-related medical condition (such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes). To reduce the GI side effects, which mainly occur in the early dose escalation period, semaglutide is given in increasing doses by a prefilled pen by self-injection under the skin (abdomen, thigh, or arm) starting at 0.25 mg for a month and gradual increases each month reaching the maximum dose of 2.4 mg at month 5. The FDA label for dosing of tirzepatide has not been provided yet but in the weight loss trial there was a similar dose escalation from 2.5 mg up to 15 mg by month 5. The escalation is essential to reduce the frequent GI side effects, such as seen below in the tirzepatide trial.

What does this mean?

More than 650 million adults and 340 million children aged 5-18 are obese. The global obesity epidemic has been relentless, worsening each year, and a driver of “diabesity,” the combined dual epidemic. We now have a breakthrough class of drugs that can achieve profound weight loss equivalent to bariatric surgery, along with the side benefits of reducing cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and hyperlipidemia), improving glucose regulation, reversing fatty liver, and the many detrimental long-term effects of obesity such as osteoarthritis and various cancers. That, in itself, is remarkable. Revolutionary.

But the downsides are also obvious. Self-injections, even though they are once a week, are not palatable for many. We have seen far more of these injectables in recent years such as the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors for hypercholesterolemia or the tumor necrosis factor blockers for autoimmune conditions. That still will not make them a popular item for such an enormous population of potential users.

That brings me to Rybelsus, the oral form of semaglutide, which is approved for glucose regulation improvement but not obesity. It effects for weight loss have been modest, compared with Wegovy (5 to 8 pounds for the 7- and 14-mg dose, respectively). But the potential for the very high efficacy of an injectable to be achievable via a pill represents an important path going forward—it could help markedly reduce the cost and uptake.

The problem of discontinuation of the drugs is big, since there are limited data and the likelihood is that the weight will be regained unless there are substantial changes in lifestyle. We know how hard it is to durably achieve such changes, along with the undesirability (and uncertainty with respect to unknown side effects) of having to take injectable drugs for many years, no less the cost of doing that.

The cost of these drugs will clearly and profoundly exacerbate inequities, since they are eminently affordable by the rich, but the need is extreme among the indigent. We’ve already seen celebrities take Wegovy for weight loss who are not obese, a window into how these drugs can and will be used without supportive data. As one physician recently observed, “Other than Viagra and Botox, I’ve seen no other medication so quickly become part of modern culture’s social vernacular.” Already there are concerns that such use is preventing access to the drugs for those who qualify and need them.

There are multiple agents in the class under development which should help increase competition and reduce cost, but they will remain expensive. There is private insurance reimbursement, often with a significant copay, for people who tightly fit the inclusion criteria. Eventual coverage by Medicare will markedly expand their use, and we can expect cost-effectiveness studies to be published showing how much saving there is for the drugs compared with bariatric surgery or not achieving the weight loss. But that doesn’t change the cost at the societal level. Even as we’ve seen with generics, which will ultimately be available, the alleviation of the cost problem isn’t what we’d hoped.

This is not unlike the recent triumphs of gene therapy, as in $3.5 million for a cure of hemophilia that just got FDA approval, but instead of a rare disease we are talking about the most common medical condition in the world. We finally get across the long sought after (what many would qualify as miraculous) goal line, but the economics collide with the uptake and real benefit.

These concerns can’t be put aside in the health inequity-laden world we live in, that will unquestionably be exacerbated. However, we cannot miss that this represents one of the most important, biggest medical breakthroughs in history. This may signify the end or marked reduction in the need for bariatric surgery. These drugs will likely become some of the most prescribed of all medications in the upcoming years. While there are many drawbacks, we shouldn’t miss such an extraordinary advance in medicine – the first real, potent and safe treatment of obesity.

Thanks for reading Ground Truths. I hope you will share these posts and subscribe, to be sure you don’t miss them.

Dr. Topol is director, Scripps Translational Science Institute; executive vice president and professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute and senior consultant, division of cardiovascular diseases, at the Scripps Clinic, both in La Jolla, Calif. He disclosed relevant financial relationships with Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Walgreens, Quest Diagnostics, MyoKardia, and National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published December 10 on Medscape editor-in-chief Eric Topol’s Substack ”Ground Truths.”

There are many holy grails in medicine, with failure after failure, like finding a way to prevent Alzheimer’s disease or a noninvasive means for accurately measuring ambulatory blood pressure. But one of the biggest and most daunting has been finding drugs that can tackle obesity – achieving a substantial amount of weight loss without serious side effects. Many attempts to get there now fill a graveyard of failed drugs, such as fen-phen in the 1990s when a single small study of this drug combination in 121 people unleashed millions of prescriptions, some leading to serious heart valve lesions that resulted in withdrawal of the drug in 1995. The drug rimonabant, an endocannabinoid receptor blocker (think of blocking the munchies after marijuana) looked encouraging in randomized trials. However, subsequently, in a trial that I led of nearly 19,000 participants in 42 countries around the world, there was a significant excess of depression, neuropsychiatric side-effects and suicidal ideation which spelled the end of that drug’s life.

In the United States, where there had not been an antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2014, Wegovy (semaglutide), a once-weekly injection was approved in June 2021. The same drug, at a lower dose, is known as Ozempic (as in O-O-O, Ozempic, the ubiquitous commercial that you undoubtedly hear and see on TV) and had already been approved in January 2020 for improving glucose regulation in diabetes. The next drug on fast track at FDA to be imminently approved is tirzepatide (Mounjaro) following its approval for diabetes in May 2022. It is noteworthy that the discovery of these drugs for weight loss was serendipitous: they were being developed for improving glucose regulation and unexpectedly were found to achieve significant weight reduction.

Both semaglutide and tirzepatide underwent randomized, placebo-controlled trials for obesity, with marked reduction of weight as shown below. Tirzepatide at dose of 10-15 mg per week achieved greater than 20% body weight reduction. Semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg achieved about 17% reduction. These per cent changes in body weight are 7-9 fold more than seen with placebo (2%-3% reduction). Note: these levels of percent body-weight reduction resemble what is typically achieved with the different types of bariatric surgery, such as gastric bypass.

How do these drugs work?

These are peptides in the class of incretins, mimicking gut hormones that are secreted after food intake which stimulate insulin secretion.

How they are given and practical considerations

For semaglutide, which has FDA approval, the indication is a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater than 27 and a weight-related medical condition (such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes). To reduce the GI side effects, which mainly occur in the early dose escalation period, semaglutide is given in increasing doses by a prefilled pen by self-injection under the skin (abdomen, thigh, or arm) starting at 0.25 mg for a month and gradual increases each month reaching the maximum dose of 2.4 mg at month 5. The FDA label for dosing of tirzepatide has not been provided yet but in the weight loss trial there was a similar dose escalation from 2.5 mg up to 15 mg by month 5. The escalation is essential to reduce the frequent GI side effects, such as seen below in the tirzepatide trial.

What does this mean?

More than 650 million adults and 340 million children aged 5-18 are obese. The global obesity epidemic has been relentless, worsening each year, and a driver of “diabesity,” the combined dual epidemic. We now have a breakthrough class of drugs that can achieve profound weight loss equivalent to bariatric surgery, along with the side benefits of reducing cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and hyperlipidemia), improving glucose regulation, reversing fatty liver, and the many detrimental long-term effects of obesity such as osteoarthritis and various cancers. That, in itself, is remarkable. Revolutionary.

But the downsides are also obvious. Self-injections, even though they are once a week, are not palatable for many. We have seen far more of these injectables in recent years such as the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors for hypercholesterolemia or the tumor necrosis factor blockers for autoimmune conditions. That still will not make them a popular item for such an enormous population of potential users.

That brings me to Rybelsus, the oral form of semaglutide, which is approved for glucose regulation improvement but not obesity. It effects for weight loss have been modest, compared with Wegovy (5 to 8 pounds for the 7- and 14-mg dose, respectively). But the potential for the very high efficacy of an injectable to be achievable via a pill represents an important path going forward—it could help markedly reduce the cost and uptake.

The problem of discontinuation of the drugs is big, since there are limited data and the likelihood is that the weight will be regained unless there are substantial changes in lifestyle. We know how hard it is to durably achieve such changes, along with the undesirability (and uncertainty with respect to unknown side effects) of having to take injectable drugs for many years, no less the cost of doing that.

The cost of these drugs will clearly and profoundly exacerbate inequities, since they are eminently affordable by the rich, but the need is extreme among the indigent. We’ve already seen celebrities take Wegovy for weight loss who are not obese, a window into how these drugs can and will be used without supportive data. As one physician recently observed, “Other than Viagra and Botox, I’ve seen no other medication so quickly become part of modern culture’s social vernacular.” Already there are concerns that such use is preventing access to the drugs for those who qualify and need them.

There are multiple agents in the class under development which should help increase competition and reduce cost, but they will remain expensive. There is private insurance reimbursement, often with a significant copay, for people who tightly fit the inclusion criteria. Eventual coverage by Medicare will markedly expand their use, and we can expect cost-effectiveness studies to be published showing how much saving there is for the drugs compared with bariatric surgery or not achieving the weight loss. But that doesn’t change the cost at the societal level. Even as we’ve seen with generics, which will ultimately be available, the alleviation of the cost problem isn’t what we’d hoped.

This is not unlike the recent triumphs of gene therapy, as in $3.5 million for a cure of hemophilia that just got FDA approval, but instead of a rare disease we are talking about the most common medical condition in the world. We finally get across the long sought after (what many would qualify as miraculous) goal line, but the economics collide with the uptake and real benefit.

These concerns can’t be put aside in the health inequity-laden world we live in, that will unquestionably be exacerbated. However, we cannot miss that this represents one of the most important, biggest medical breakthroughs in history. This may signify the end or marked reduction in the need for bariatric surgery. These drugs will likely become some of the most prescribed of all medications in the upcoming years. While there are many drawbacks, we shouldn’t miss such an extraordinary advance in medicine – the first real, potent and safe treatment of obesity.

Thanks for reading Ground Truths. I hope you will share these posts and subscribe, to be sure you don’t miss them.

Dr. Topol is director, Scripps Translational Science Institute; executive vice president and professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute and senior consultant, division of cardiovascular diseases, at the Scripps Clinic, both in La Jolla, Calif. He disclosed relevant financial relationships with Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Walgreens, Quest Diagnostics, MyoKardia, and National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published December 10 on Medscape editor-in-chief Eric Topol’s Substack ”Ground Truths.”

There are many holy grails in medicine, with failure after failure, like finding a way to prevent Alzheimer’s disease or a noninvasive means for accurately measuring ambulatory blood pressure. But one of the biggest and most daunting has been finding drugs that can tackle obesity – achieving a substantial amount of weight loss without serious side effects. Many attempts to get there now fill a graveyard of failed drugs, such as fen-phen in the 1990s when a single small study of this drug combination in 121 people unleashed millions of prescriptions, some leading to serious heart valve lesions that resulted in withdrawal of the drug in 1995. The drug rimonabant, an endocannabinoid receptor blocker (think of blocking the munchies after marijuana) looked encouraging in randomized trials. However, subsequently, in a trial that I led of nearly 19,000 participants in 42 countries around the world, there was a significant excess of depression, neuropsychiatric side-effects and suicidal ideation which spelled the end of that drug’s life.

In the United States, where there had not been an antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2014, Wegovy (semaglutide), a once-weekly injection was approved in June 2021. The same drug, at a lower dose, is known as Ozempic (as in O-O-O, Ozempic, the ubiquitous commercial that you undoubtedly hear and see on TV) and had already been approved in January 2020 for improving glucose regulation in diabetes. The next drug on fast track at FDA to be imminently approved is tirzepatide (Mounjaro) following its approval for diabetes in May 2022. It is noteworthy that the discovery of these drugs for weight loss was serendipitous: they were being developed for improving glucose regulation and unexpectedly were found to achieve significant weight reduction.

Both semaglutide and tirzepatide underwent randomized, placebo-controlled trials for obesity, with marked reduction of weight as shown below. Tirzepatide at dose of 10-15 mg per week achieved greater than 20% body weight reduction. Semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg achieved about 17% reduction. These per cent changes in body weight are 7-9 fold more than seen with placebo (2%-3% reduction). Note: these levels of percent body-weight reduction resemble what is typically achieved with the different types of bariatric surgery, such as gastric bypass.

How do these drugs work?

These are peptides in the class of incretins, mimicking gut hormones that are secreted after food intake which stimulate insulin secretion.

How they are given and practical considerations

For semaglutide, which has FDA approval, the indication is a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater than 27 and a weight-related medical condition (such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes). To reduce the GI side effects, which mainly occur in the early dose escalation period, semaglutide is given in increasing doses by a prefilled pen by self-injection under the skin (abdomen, thigh, or arm) starting at 0.25 mg for a month and gradual increases each month reaching the maximum dose of 2.4 mg at month 5. The FDA label for dosing of tirzepatide has not been provided yet but in the weight loss trial there was a similar dose escalation from 2.5 mg up to 15 mg by month 5. The escalation is essential to reduce the frequent GI side effects, such as seen below in the tirzepatide trial.

What does this mean?

More than 650 million adults and 340 million children aged 5-18 are obese. The global obesity epidemic has been relentless, worsening each year, and a driver of “diabesity,” the combined dual epidemic. We now have a breakthrough class of drugs that can achieve profound weight loss equivalent to bariatric surgery, along with the side benefits of reducing cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension and hyperlipidemia), improving glucose regulation, reversing fatty liver, and the many detrimental long-term effects of obesity such as osteoarthritis and various cancers. That, in itself, is remarkable. Revolutionary.

But the downsides are also obvious. Self-injections, even though they are once a week, are not palatable for many. We have seen far more of these injectables in recent years such as the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors for hypercholesterolemia or the tumor necrosis factor blockers for autoimmune conditions. That still will not make them a popular item for such an enormous population of potential users.

That brings me to Rybelsus, the oral form of semaglutide, which is approved for glucose regulation improvement but not obesity. It effects for weight loss have been modest, compared with Wegovy (5 to 8 pounds for the 7- and 14-mg dose, respectively). But the potential for the very high efficacy of an injectable to be achievable via a pill represents an important path going forward—it could help markedly reduce the cost and uptake.

The problem of discontinuation of the drugs is big, since there are limited data and the likelihood is that the weight will be regained unless there are substantial changes in lifestyle. We know how hard it is to durably achieve such changes, along with the undesirability (and uncertainty with respect to unknown side effects) of having to take injectable drugs for many years, no less the cost of doing that.

The cost of these drugs will clearly and profoundly exacerbate inequities, since they are eminently affordable by the rich, but the need is extreme among the indigent. We’ve already seen celebrities take Wegovy for weight loss who are not obese, a window into how these drugs can and will be used without supportive data. As one physician recently observed, “Other than Viagra and Botox, I’ve seen no other medication so quickly become part of modern culture’s social vernacular.” Already there are concerns that such use is preventing access to the drugs for those who qualify and need them.

There are multiple agents in the class under development which should help increase competition and reduce cost, but they will remain expensive. There is private insurance reimbursement, often with a significant copay, for people who tightly fit the inclusion criteria. Eventual coverage by Medicare will markedly expand their use, and we can expect cost-effectiveness studies to be published showing how much saving there is for the drugs compared with bariatric surgery or not achieving the weight loss. But that doesn’t change the cost at the societal level. Even as we’ve seen with generics, which will ultimately be available, the alleviation of the cost problem isn’t what we’d hoped.

This is not unlike the recent triumphs of gene therapy, as in $3.5 million for a cure of hemophilia that just got FDA approval, but instead of a rare disease we are talking about the most common medical condition in the world. We finally get across the long sought after (what many would qualify as miraculous) goal line, but the economics collide with the uptake and real benefit.

These concerns can’t be put aside in the health inequity-laden world we live in, that will unquestionably be exacerbated. However, we cannot miss that this represents one of the most important, biggest medical breakthroughs in history. This may signify the end or marked reduction in the need for bariatric surgery. These drugs will likely become some of the most prescribed of all medications in the upcoming years. While there are many drawbacks, we shouldn’t miss such an extraordinary advance in medicine – the first real, potent and safe treatment of obesity.

Thanks for reading Ground Truths. I hope you will share these posts and subscribe, to be sure you don’t miss them.

Dr. Topol is director, Scripps Translational Science Institute; executive vice president and professor of molecular medicine at The Scripps Research Institute and senior consultant, division of cardiovascular diseases, at the Scripps Clinic, both in La Jolla, Calif. He disclosed relevant financial relationships with Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Walgreens, Quest Diagnostics, MyoKardia, and National Institutes of Health. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Patients with dementia and active seizures experience faster cognitive and functional decline and have a greater risk of dying younger than people with dementia who don’t have seizures, according to a multicenter study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“When we compared patients with seizures with those who did not have seizures, we found that patients with seizures were more likely to have more severe cognitive impairment; they were more likely to have physical dependence and so worse functional outcomes; and they also had higher mortality rates at a younger age,” lead study author Ifrah Zawar, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

“The average age of mortality for seizure patients was around 72 years and the average age of mortality for nonseizure patients was around 79 years, so there was a 7- to 8-year difference in mortality,” she said.
 

Seizures make matters worse

The study analyzed data on 26,425 patients with dementia, 374 (1.4%) of whom had seizures, collected from 2005 to 2021 at 39 Alzheimer’s disease centers in the United States. Patients who had seizures were significantly younger when cognitive decline began (ages 62.9 vs. 68.4 years, P < .001) and died younger (72.99 vs. 79.72 years, P < .001).

The study also found a number of factors associated with active seizures, including a history of dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation (odds ratio, 5.55; P < .001), stroke (OR, 3.17; P < .001), transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.72; P = .003), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.92; P < .001), Parkinson’s disease (OR, 1.79; P = .025), active depression (OR, 1.61; P < .001) and lower education (OR, 0.97; P =.043).

After the study made adjustments for sex and other associated factors, it found that patients with seizures were still at a 76% higher risk of dying younger (hazard ratio, 1.76; P < .001).

The study also determined that patients with seizures had worse functional assessment scores and were more likely to be physically dependent on others (OR, 2.52; P < .001). Seizure patients also performed worse on Mini-Mental Status Examination (18.50 vs. 22.88; P < .001) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of boxes (7.95 vs. 4.28; P < .001) after adjusting for age and duration of cognitive decline.
 

A tip for caregivers

Dr. Zawar acknowledged that differentiating seizures from transient bouts of confusion in people with dementia can be difficult for family members and caregivers, but she offered advice to help them do so. “If they notice any unusual confusion or any altered mentation which is episodic in nature,” she said, “they should bring it to the neurologist’s attention as early as possible, because there are studies that have shown the diagnosis of seizures is delayed, and if they are treated in time they can be well-controlled.” Electroencephalography can also confirm the presence of seizures, she added.

Double whammy

One limitation of this study is the lack of details on the types of seizures the participants had along with the inconsistency of EEGs performed on the study population. “In future studies, I would like to have more EEG data on the types of seizures and the frequency of seizures to assess these factors further,” Dr. Zawar said.

Having more detailed information on the seizures would make the findings more valuable, Andrew J. Cole, MD, director of the epilepsy service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said in an interview. “We know a lot about clinically apparent seizures, as witnessed by this paper, but we still don’t know a whole lot about clinically silent or cryptic or nighttime-only seizures that maybe no one would really recognize as such unless they were specifically looking for them, and this paper doesn’t address that issue,” he said.

While the finding that patients with other neurologic diseases have more seizures even if they also have Alzheimer’s disease isn’t “a huge surprise,” Dr. Cole added. “On the other hand, the paper is important because it shows us that in the course of having Alzheimer’s disease, having seizures also makes your outcome worse, the speed of progression faster, and it complicates the management and living with this disease, and they make that point quite clear.”

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Cole have no relevant disclosures.
 

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Patients with dementia and active seizures experience faster cognitive and functional decline and have a greater risk of dying younger than people with dementia who don’t have seizures, according to a multicenter study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“When we compared patients with seizures with those who did not have seizures, we found that patients with seizures were more likely to have more severe cognitive impairment; they were more likely to have physical dependence and so worse functional outcomes; and they also had higher mortality rates at a younger age,” lead study author Ifrah Zawar, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

“The average age of mortality for seizure patients was around 72 years and the average age of mortality for nonseizure patients was around 79 years, so there was a 7- to 8-year difference in mortality,” she said.
 

Seizures make matters worse

The study analyzed data on 26,425 patients with dementia, 374 (1.4%) of whom had seizures, collected from 2005 to 2021 at 39 Alzheimer’s disease centers in the United States. Patients who had seizures were significantly younger when cognitive decline began (ages 62.9 vs. 68.4 years, P < .001) and died younger (72.99 vs. 79.72 years, P < .001).

The study also found a number of factors associated with active seizures, including a history of dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation (odds ratio, 5.55; P < .001), stroke (OR, 3.17; P < .001), transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.72; P = .003), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.92; P < .001), Parkinson’s disease (OR, 1.79; P = .025), active depression (OR, 1.61; P < .001) and lower education (OR, 0.97; P =.043).

After the study made adjustments for sex and other associated factors, it found that patients with seizures were still at a 76% higher risk of dying younger (hazard ratio, 1.76; P < .001).

The study also determined that patients with seizures had worse functional assessment scores and were more likely to be physically dependent on others (OR, 2.52; P < .001). Seizure patients also performed worse on Mini-Mental Status Examination (18.50 vs. 22.88; P < .001) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of boxes (7.95 vs. 4.28; P < .001) after adjusting for age and duration of cognitive decline.
 

A tip for caregivers

Dr. Zawar acknowledged that differentiating seizures from transient bouts of confusion in people with dementia can be difficult for family members and caregivers, but she offered advice to help them do so. “If they notice any unusual confusion or any altered mentation which is episodic in nature,” she said, “they should bring it to the neurologist’s attention as early as possible, because there are studies that have shown the diagnosis of seizures is delayed, and if they are treated in time they can be well-controlled.” Electroencephalography can also confirm the presence of seizures, she added.

Double whammy

One limitation of this study is the lack of details on the types of seizures the participants had along with the inconsistency of EEGs performed on the study population. “In future studies, I would like to have more EEG data on the types of seizures and the frequency of seizures to assess these factors further,” Dr. Zawar said.

Having more detailed information on the seizures would make the findings more valuable, Andrew J. Cole, MD, director of the epilepsy service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said in an interview. “We know a lot about clinically apparent seizures, as witnessed by this paper, but we still don’t know a whole lot about clinically silent or cryptic or nighttime-only seizures that maybe no one would really recognize as such unless they were specifically looking for them, and this paper doesn’t address that issue,” he said.

While the finding that patients with other neurologic diseases have more seizures even if they also have Alzheimer’s disease isn’t “a huge surprise,” Dr. Cole added. “On the other hand, the paper is important because it shows us that in the course of having Alzheimer’s disease, having seizures also makes your outcome worse, the speed of progression faster, and it complicates the management and living with this disease, and they make that point quite clear.”

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Cole have no relevant disclosures.
 

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Patients with dementia and active seizures experience faster cognitive and functional decline and have a greater risk of dying younger than people with dementia who don’t have seizures, according to a multicenter study presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“When we compared patients with seizures with those who did not have seizures, we found that patients with seizures were more likely to have more severe cognitive impairment; they were more likely to have physical dependence and so worse functional outcomes; and they also had higher mortality rates at a younger age,” lead study author Ifrah Zawar, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview.

“The average age of mortality for seizure patients was around 72 years and the average age of mortality for nonseizure patients was around 79 years, so there was a 7- to 8-year difference in mortality,” she said.
 

Seizures make matters worse

The study analyzed data on 26,425 patients with dementia, 374 (1.4%) of whom had seizures, collected from 2005 to 2021 at 39 Alzheimer’s disease centers in the United States. Patients who had seizures were significantly younger when cognitive decline began (ages 62.9 vs. 68.4 years, P < .001) and died younger (72.99 vs. 79.72 years, P < .001).

The study also found a number of factors associated with active seizures, including a history of dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation (odds ratio, 5.55; P < .001), stroke (OR, 3.17; P < .001), transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.72; P = .003), traumatic brain injury (OR, 1.92; P < .001), Parkinson’s disease (OR, 1.79; P = .025), active depression (OR, 1.61; P < .001) and lower education (OR, 0.97; P =.043).

After the study made adjustments for sex and other associated factors, it found that patients with seizures were still at a 76% higher risk of dying younger (hazard ratio, 1.76; P < .001).

The study also determined that patients with seizures had worse functional assessment scores and were more likely to be physically dependent on others (OR, 2.52; P < .001). Seizure patients also performed worse on Mini-Mental Status Examination (18.50 vs. 22.88; P < .001) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of boxes (7.95 vs. 4.28; P < .001) after adjusting for age and duration of cognitive decline.
 

A tip for caregivers

Dr. Zawar acknowledged that differentiating seizures from transient bouts of confusion in people with dementia can be difficult for family members and caregivers, but she offered advice to help them do so. “If they notice any unusual confusion or any altered mentation which is episodic in nature,” she said, “they should bring it to the neurologist’s attention as early as possible, because there are studies that have shown the diagnosis of seizures is delayed, and if they are treated in time they can be well-controlled.” Electroencephalography can also confirm the presence of seizures, she added.

Double whammy

One limitation of this study is the lack of details on the types of seizures the participants had along with the inconsistency of EEGs performed on the study population. “In future studies, I would like to have more EEG data on the types of seizures and the frequency of seizures to assess these factors further,” Dr. Zawar said.

Having more detailed information on the seizures would make the findings more valuable, Andrew J. Cole, MD, director of the epilepsy service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston said in an interview. “We know a lot about clinically apparent seizures, as witnessed by this paper, but we still don’t know a whole lot about clinically silent or cryptic or nighttime-only seizures that maybe no one would really recognize as such unless they were specifically looking for them, and this paper doesn’t address that issue,” he said.

While the finding that patients with other neurologic diseases have more seizures even if they also have Alzheimer’s disease isn’t “a huge surprise,” Dr. Cole added. “On the other hand, the paper is important because it shows us that in the course of having Alzheimer’s disease, having seizures also makes your outcome worse, the speed of progression faster, and it complicates the management and living with this disease, and they make that point quite clear.”

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Cole have no relevant disclosures.