Ob.Gyn. News

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Private equity firms are increasingly acquiring physician practices across a range of specialties, a recent analysis shows.

Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.

Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.

Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).

Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.

Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.

“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.

Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.

“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”

Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.

Private equity firms are increasingly acquiring physician practices across a range of specialties, a recent analysis shows.

Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.

Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.

Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).

Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.

Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.

“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.

Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.

“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”

Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.

Private equity firms are increasingly acquiring physician practices across a range of specialties, a recent analysis shows.

Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.

Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.

Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).

Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.

Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.

Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.

“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.

Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.

“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”

Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

rfranki@mdedge.com

An analysis of four commonly performed surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence found that they all improved sexual dysfunction to a similar degree over the course of 24 months.

Juanmonino/E+/Getty Images

“There is a growing body of literature concerning female sexual function after treatment for urinary incontinence,” Stephanie M. Glass Clark, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. “Pelvic floor muscle therapy has been shown to improve sexual function as well as urinary incontinence symptoms. Surgical treatment, on the other hand, has had unclear effects on sexual function.”

Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues conducted a combined secondary analysis of the SISTEr (Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial) and TOMUS (Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings) studies. Women in the original trials were randomized to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence with an autologous fascial sling or Burch colposuspension (SISTEr), or a retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling (TOMUS). Sexual function as assessed by the short version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/ Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) was compared between groups at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.

Of the 924 women included, 249 (27%) had an autologous fascial sling, 239 (26%) underwent Burch colposuspension, 216 (23%) had a retropubic midurethral sling placed, and 220 (24%) had a transobturator midurethral sling placed. The researchers observed no significant differences in mean PISQ-12 scores between the four treatment groups at the time of baseline (P = .07) or at the 12- and 24-month visits (P = .42 and P = .50, respectively). Patients in the two studies showed an overall improvement in sexual function over the 24-month study period.

Specifically, PISQ-12 scores at baseline were 32.6 in the transobturator sling group, 33.1 in the retropubic sling group, 31.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 31.4 in the fascial sling group. At 12 months, the PISQ-12 scores rose to 37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.8 in the retropubic sling group, 36.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.1 in the fascial sling group. These scores were generally maintained at 24 months (37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.1 in the retropubic sling group, 36.7 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.4 in the fascial sling group), and were not statistically different than the scores tabulated at the 12-month follow-up visit (P = .97).

“This study and others demonstrate that sexual function improves with surgical improvement of stress incontinence which may suggest a possible association of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues concluded. “As we continue to explore the complex and multifaceted problem of sexual dysfunction, further evaluation of the effect of pelvic floor disorders – and their treatments – will be important and necessary research.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that there was a low degree of diversity among women in the studied trials, which limits the generalizability of the findings. They also pointed out that the PISQ-12 does not address sexual stimulation or nonpenetrative vaginal intercourse. “Additionally, it limits partner-related problems to erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation; some eligible participants may be excluded secondary to sexual preferences given the assumptions inherent to the questionnaire that the partner is male,” they wrote.

This secondary analysis had no outside sources of funding. Dr. Glass Clark reported that she received a travel stipend from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, sponsored by OB-STATS. Her coauthors reported having no financial conflicts.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glass Clark SM et al. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(2):352-60.

An analysis of four commonly performed surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence found that they all improved sexual dysfunction to a similar degree over the course of 24 months.

Juanmonino/E+/Getty Images

“There is a growing body of literature concerning female sexual function after treatment for urinary incontinence,” Stephanie M. Glass Clark, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. “Pelvic floor muscle therapy has been shown to improve sexual function as well as urinary incontinence symptoms. Surgical treatment, on the other hand, has had unclear effects on sexual function.”

Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues conducted a combined secondary analysis of the SISTEr (Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial) and TOMUS (Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings) studies. Women in the original trials were randomized to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence with an autologous fascial sling or Burch colposuspension (SISTEr), or a retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling (TOMUS). Sexual function as assessed by the short version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/ Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) was compared between groups at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.

Of the 924 women included, 249 (27%) had an autologous fascial sling, 239 (26%) underwent Burch colposuspension, 216 (23%) had a retropubic midurethral sling placed, and 220 (24%) had a transobturator midurethral sling placed. The researchers observed no significant differences in mean PISQ-12 scores between the four treatment groups at the time of baseline (P = .07) or at the 12- and 24-month visits (P = .42 and P = .50, respectively). Patients in the two studies showed an overall improvement in sexual function over the 24-month study period.

Specifically, PISQ-12 scores at baseline were 32.6 in the transobturator sling group, 33.1 in the retropubic sling group, 31.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 31.4 in the fascial sling group. At 12 months, the PISQ-12 scores rose to 37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.8 in the retropubic sling group, 36.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.1 in the fascial sling group. These scores were generally maintained at 24 months (37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.1 in the retropubic sling group, 36.7 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.4 in the fascial sling group), and were not statistically different than the scores tabulated at the 12-month follow-up visit (P = .97).

“This study and others demonstrate that sexual function improves with surgical improvement of stress incontinence which may suggest a possible association of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues concluded. “As we continue to explore the complex and multifaceted problem of sexual dysfunction, further evaluation of the effect of pelvic floor disorders – and their treatments – will be important and necessary research.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that there was a low degree of diversity among women in the studied trials, which limits the generalizability of the findings. They also pointed out that the PISQ-12 does not address sexual stimulation or nonpenetrative vaginal intercourse. “Additionally, it limits partner-related problems to erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation; some eligible participants may be excluded secondary to sexual preferences given the assumptions inherent to the questionnaire that the partner is male,” they wrote.

This secondary analysis had no outside sources of funding. Dr. Glass Clark reported that she received a travel stipend from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, sponsored by OB-STATS. Her coauthors reported having no financial conflicts.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glass Clark SM et al. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(2):352-60.

An analysis of four commonly performed surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence found that they all improved sexual dysfunction to a similar degree over the course of 24 months.

Juanmonino/E+/Getty Images

“There is a growing body of literature concerning female sexual function after treatment for urinary incontinence,” Stephanie M. Glass Clark, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. “Pelvic floor muscle therapy has been shown to improve sexual function as well as urinary incontinence symptoms. Surgical treatment, on the other hand, has had unclear effects on sexual function.”

Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues conducted a combined secondary analysis of the SISTEr (Stress Incontinence Surgical Treatment Efficacy Trial) and TOMUS (Trial of Mid-Urethral Slings) studies. Women in the original trials were randomized to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence with an autologous fascial sling or Burch colposuspension (SISTEr), or a retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling (TOMUS). Sexual function as assessed by the short version of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/ Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) was compared between groups at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months.

Of the 924 women included, 249 (27%) had an autologous fascial sling, 239 (26%) underwent Burch colposuspension, 216 (23%) had a retropubic midurethral sling placed, and 220 (24%) had a transobturator midurethral sling placed. The researchers observed no significant differences in mean PISQ-12 scores between the four treatment groups at the time of baseline (P = .07) or at the 12- and 24-month visits (P = .42 and P = .50, respectively). Patients in the two studies showed an overall improvement in sexual function over the 24-month study period.

Specifically, PISQ-12 scores at baseline were 32.6 in the transobturator sling group, 33.1 in the retropubic sling group, 31.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 31.4 in the fascial sling group. At 12 months, the PISQ-12 scores rose to 37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.8 in the retropubic sling group, 36.9 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.1 in the fascial sling group. These scores were generally maintained at 24 months (37.7 in the transobturator sling group, 37.1 in the retropubic sling group, 36.7 in the Burch procedure group, and 37.4 in the fascial sling group), and were not statistically different than the scores tabulated at the 12-month follow-up visit (P = .97).

“This study and others demonstrate that sexual function improves with surgical improvement of stress incontinence which may suggest a possible association of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction,” Dr. Glass Clark and colleagues concluded. “As we continue to explore the complex and multifaceted problem of sexual dysfunction, further evaluation of the effect of pelvic floor disorders – and their treatments – will be important and necessary research.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that there was a low degree of diversity among women in the studied trials, which limits the generalizability of the findings. They also pointed out that the PISQ-12 does not address sexual stimulation or nonpenetrative vaginal intercourse. “Additionally, it limits partner-related problems to erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation; some eligible participants may be excluded secondary to sexual preferences given the assumptions inherent to the questionnaire that the partner is male,” they wrote.

This secondary analysis had no outside sources of funding. Dr. Glass Clark reported that she received a travel stipend from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, sponsored by OB-STATS. Her coauthors reported having no financial conflicts.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glass Clark SM et al. Obstet Gynecol 2020;135(2):352-60.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

An accelerated path to surgery after hip fracture did not improve mortality or major complications, according to a new international randomized trial. However, a fast track to surgery hastened mobilization, weight-bearing, and hospital discharge, and reduced the risk of urinary tract infection and delirium.

The HIP ATTACK (Hip Fracture Accelerated Surgical Treatment and Care Track) study enrolled 2,970 patients (median age, 79 years; 69% women) during March 2014-May 2019. The study excluded patients younger than 45 years, as well as those who were on nonreversible anticoagulation and who had high-energy or more complex hip fractures. In all, 1,487 patients were randomly assigned to the accelerated-surgery group, which received early medical evaluation with a goal of heading to surgery within 6 hours of a hip fracture diagnosis. The goal was achieved, with patients in the intervention arm receiving care at a median 6 hours after diagnosis. Patients in the 69 participating hospitals in 17 countries who were assigned to standard of care received surgery at a median 24 hours after diagnosis (P less than .001).

“Observational data, clinical experience, and biological rationale suggest that the longer a patient is immobile and lying in a bed, the higher the risk of poor outcomes,” wrote principal investigators Philip J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, and Mohit Bhandari, MD, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and their colleagues on the HIP ATTACK writing committee.

The study was the first large, randomized trial that directly compared accelerated surgery with standard of care, noted the authors. Previous observational studies had shown worse outcomes for those usual-care patients who waited longer for surgery.

In HIP ATTACK, there was no difference in the primary outcome measures of 90-day mortality and major complications for patients receiving surgery within 6 hours after hip fracture diagnosis, compared with those who received surgery within 24 hours. The coprimary outcome measures included serious complications, such as MI, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, and life-threatening or major bleeding.

In practice, the researchers found that patients in the accelerated-surgery group received medical clearance in a median time of 2 hours after a diagnosis of hip fracture, whereas the standard of care group was cleared in 4 hours.

At 90 days, 9% of patients in the accelerated-surgery group and 10% of those in the usual-care group had died, a nonsignificant difference between the two groups. In both groups, 22% of patients experienced a major complication. A post hoc analysis that looked for any site-clustering effects did not detect different outcomes, the investigators wrote.

Delirium occurred in 132 patients (9%) of the accelerated-surgery group and in 175 patients (12%) in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92). Infection without sepsis and urinary tract infection were both less common in the accelerated-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.80 and 0.78, respectively).

The authors noted that the potential benefits of a speedy course to surgery, including reduced immobility and less pain, could be negated if physicians had less time to optimize medical care for older patients with multiple comorbidities and who make up a significant proportion of those who sustain low-energy hip fractures. However, medical complications, such as MI and new-onset atrial fibrillation, were not seen more frequently in the accelerated-surgery group.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, MD, and Fernando Lopez-Prats, MD, of the Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain, observed that the 6-hour window for hip fracture surgery may be difficult to achieve given clinical practicalities and that, in some cases, the 6-hour window might be unavoidable if severe comorbidities and overall poor health make early surgery inadvisable.

They also expressed concern that, despite the lack of harm shown in the patients who underwent accelerated surgery, the surgery “might negatively affect patients’ outcomes by preventing or limiting the opportunity for optimization of patients’ medical conditions before surgery.” They called for further study to delineate how fitness for surgery affects outcomes in accelerated surgery and to further examine whether the better outcomes are associated with improved cost-effectiveness.

Multiple HIP ATTACK coinvestigators reported relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including companies that manufacture hip prosthesis and orthopedic surgical devices and implants. The study was sponsored by the Canadian Population Health Research Institute, the Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Smith & Nephew (to recruit patients in Spain), and Indiegogo Crowdfunding.

SOURCE: Borges F et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb. 9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1.