Clinical Endocrinology News

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity performed in the evening is associated with the lowest risk for mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and microvascular disease (MVD) in adults with obesity, including those with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Bouts of moderate to vigorous aerobic physical activity are widely recognized to improve cardiometabolic risk factors, but whether morning, afternoon, or evening timing may lead to greater improvements is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed UK Biobank data of 29,836 participants with obesity (body mass index, › 30; mean age, 62.2 years; 53.2% women), including 2995 also diagnosed with T2D, all enrolled in 2006-2010.
• Aerobic activity was defined as bouts lasting ≥ 3 minutes, and the intensity of activity was classified as light, moderate, or vigorous using accelerometer data collected from participants.
• Participants were stratified into the morning (6 a.m. to < 12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m. to < 6 p.m.), and evening (6 p.m. to < 12 a.m.) groups based on when > 50% of their total moderate to vigorous activity occurred, and those with no aerobic bouts were considered the reference group.
• The association between the timing of aerobic physical activity and risk for all-cause mortality, CVD (defined as circulatory, such as hypertension), and MVD (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy) was evaluated over a median follow-up of 7.9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mortality risk was lowest in the evening moderate to vigorous physical activity group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) and even lower in the T2D subgroup (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.76) than in the reference group.
• Mortality risk was lower in the afternoon (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and morning (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79) activity groups than in the reference group, but this association was weaker than that observed in the evening activity group.
• The evening moderate to vigorous activity group had a lower risk for CVD (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75) and MVD (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) than the reference group.
• Among participants with obesity and T2D, moderate to vigorous physical activity in the evening was associated with a lower risk for mortality, CVD, and MVD.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “The results of this study emphasize that beyond the total volume of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity], its timing, particularly in the evening, was consistently associated with the lowest risk of mortality relative to other timing windows.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Angelo Sabag, PhD, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Australia, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Because this was an observational study, the possibility of reverse causation from prodromal disease and unaccounted confounding factors could not have been ruled out. There was a lag of a median of 5.5 years between the UK Biobank baseline, when covariate measurements were taken, and the accelerometry study. Moreover, the response rate of the UK Biobank was low.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant and the National Heart Foundation of Australia Postdoctoral Fellowship. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Safe to say that anyone undertaking the physician journey does so with intense motivation and book smarts. Still, it can be incredibly hard to stand out. Everyone’s a go-getter, but what’s the X factor?

We asked five veteran doctors who have supervised scores of young medical professionals over the years to tell us about that one person who impressed the hell out of them — what they did, why it made them game changers, and what every doctor can learn from them. Here’s what they said ...
 

Lesson #1: Never Be Scared to Ask

Brien Barnewolt, MD, chairman and chief of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Tufts Medical Center, was very much surprised when a resident named Scott G. Weiner did something unexpected: Go after a job in the fall of his junior year residency instead of following the typical senior year trajectory.

“It’s very unusual for a trainee to apply for a job virtually a year ahead of schedule. But he knew what he wanted,” said Dr. Barnewolt. “I’d never had anybody come to me in that same scenario, and I’ve been doing this a long time.”

Under normal circumstances it would’ve been easy for Dr. Barnewolt to say no. But the unexpected request made him and his colleagues take a closer look, and they were impressed with Dr. Weiner’s skills. That, paired with his ambition and demeanor, compelled them to offer him an early job. But there’s more.

As the next year approached, Dr. Weiner explained he had an opportunity to work in emergency medicine in Tuscany and asked if he could take a 1-year delayed start for the position he applied a year early for.

The department held his position, and upon his return, Dr. Weiner made a lasting impact at Tufts before eventually moving on. “He outgrew us, which is nice to see,” Dr. Barnewolt said. (Dr. Weiner is currently McGraw Distinguished Chair in Emergency Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School.)

Bottom line: Why did Dr. Barnewolt and his colleagues do so much to accommodate a young candidate? Yes, Dr. Weiner was talented, but he was also up-front about his ambitions from the get-go. Dr. Barnewolt said that kind of initiative can only be looked at positively.

“My advice would be, if you see an opportunity or a potential place where you might want to work, put out those feelers, start those conversations,” he said. “It’s not too early, especially in certain specialties, where the job market is very tight. Then, when circumstances change, be open about it and have that conversation. The worst that somebody can say is no, so it never hurts to be honest and open about where you want to go and what you want to be.”
 

Lesson #2: Chase Your Passion ‘Relentlessly’

Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University School of Medicine, runs a laboratory that researches methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Over the years, he’s mentored many doctors but understands the ambitions of young trainees don’t always align with the little free time that they have. “Many of them drop away when you give them a [side] project,” he said.

So when Tori Kinamon asked him to work on an MRSA project — in her first year — he gave her one that focused on researching vertebral osteomyelitis, a bone infection that can coincide with S aureus. What Dr. Fowler didn’t know: Kinamon (now MD) had been a competitive gymnast at Brown and battled her own life-threatening infection with MRSA.

“To my absolute astonishment, not only did she stick to it, but she was able to compile a presentation on the science and gave an oral presentation within a year of walking in the door,” said Dr. Fowler.

She went on to lead an initiative between the National Institutes of Health and US Food and Drug Administration to create endpoints for clinical drug trials, all of which occurred before starting her residency, which she’s about to embark upon.

Dr. Kinamon’s a good example, he said, of what happens when you add genuine passion to book smarts. Those who do always stand out because you can’t fake that. “Find your passion, and then chase it down relentlessly,” he said. “Once you’ve found your passion, things get easy because it stops being work and it starts being something else.”

If you haven’t identified a focus area, Dr. Fowler said to “be agnostic and observant. Keep your eyes open and your options open because you may surprise yourself. It may turn out that you end up liking something a whole lot more than you thought you did.”
 

Lesson #3: When You Say You’ve Always Wanted to Do Something, Do Something

As the chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Northwestern Medicine Canning Thoracic Institute, Scott Budinger, MD, often hears lip service from doctors who want to put their skills to use in their local communities. One of his students actually did it. 

Justin Fiala, MD, a pulmonary, critical care, and sleep specialist at Northwestern Medicine, joined Northwestern as a pulmonary fellow with a big interest in addressing health equity issues.

Dr. Fiala began volunteering with CommunityHealth during his fellowship and saw that many patients of the free Chicago-area clinic needed help with sleep disorders. He launched the organization’s first sleep clinic and its Patient-Centered Apnea Protocols Initiative.

“He developed a plan with some of the partners of the sleep apnea equipment to do home sleep testing for these patients that’s free of cost,” said Dr. Budinger.

Dr. Fiala goes in on Saturdays and runs a free clinic conducting sleep studies for patients and outfits them with devices that they need to improve their conditions, said Dr. Budinger.

“And these patients are the severest of the severe patients,” he said. “These are people that have severe sleep apnea that are driving around the roads, oftentimes don’t have insurance because they’re also precluded from having auto insurance. So, this is really something that not just benefits these patients but benefits our whole community.”

The fact that Dr. Fiala followed through on something that all doctors aspire to do — and in the middle of a very busy training program — is something that Dr. Budinger said makes him stand out in a big way.

“If you talk to any of our trainees or young faculty, everybody’s interested in addressing the issue of health disparities,” said Dr. Budinger. “Justin looked at that and said, ‘Well, you know, I’m not interested in talking about it. What can I do about this problem? And how can I actually get boots on the ground and help?’ That requires a big activation energy that many people don’t have.”
 

Lesson #4: Be a People-Person and a Patient-Person

When hiring employees at American Family Care in Portland, Oregon, Andrew Miller, MD, director of provider training, is always on the lookout for young MDs with emotional intelligence and a good bedside manner. He has been recently blown away, however, by a young physician’s assistant named Joseph Van Bindsbergen, PA-C, who was described as “all-around wonderful” during his reference check.

“Having less than 6 months of experience out of school, he is our highest ranked provider, whether it’s a nurse practitioner, PA, or doctor, in terms of patient satisfaction,” said Dr. Miller. The young PA has an “unprecedented perfect score” on his NPS rating.

Why? Patients said they’ve never felt as heard as they felt with Van Bindsbergen.

“That’s the thing I think that the up-and-coming providers should be focusing on is making your patients feel heard,” explained Dr. Miller. Van Bindsbergen is great at building rapport with a patient, whether they are 6 or 96. “He doesn’t just ask about sore throat symptoms. He asks, ‘what is the impact on your life of the sore throat? How does it affect your family or your work? What do you think this could be besides just strep? What are your concerns?’ ”

Dr. Miller said the magic of Van Bindsbergen is that he has an innate ability to look at patients “not just as a diagnosis but as a person, which they love.”
 

Lesson #5: Remember to Make That Difference With Each Patient

Doctors are used to swooping in and seeing a patient, ordering further testing if needed, and then moving on to the next patient. But one young intern at the start of his medical career broke this mold by giving a very anxious patient some much-needed support.

“There was a resident who was working overnight, and this poor young woman came in who had a new diagnosis of an advanced illness and a lot of anxiety around her condition, the newness of it, and the impact this is going to have on her family and her life,” said Elizabeth Horn Prsic, MD, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and firm chief for medical oncology and the director of Adult Inpatient Palliative Care.

Dr. Prsic found out the next morning that this trainee accompanied the patient to the MRI and held her hand as much as he was allowed to throughout the entire experience. “I was like, ‘wait you went down with her to radiology?’ And he’s like, ‘Yes, I was there the whole time,’ ” she recalled.

This gesture not only helped the patient feel calmer after receiving a potentially life-altering diagnosis but also helped ensure the test results were as clear as possible.

“If the study is not done well and a patient is moving or uncomfortable, it has to be stopped early or paused,” said Dr. Prsic. “Then the study is not very useful. In situations like these, medical decisions may be made based on imperfect data. The fact that we had this full complete good quality scan helped us get the care that she needed in a much timelier manner to help her and to move along the care that she that was medically appropriate for her.”

Dr. Prsic got emotional reflecting on the experience. Working at Yale, she saw a ton of intelligent doctors come through the ranks. But this gesture, she said, should serve as a reminder that “you don’t need to be the smartest person in the room to just be there for a patient. It was pure empathic presence and human connection. It gave me hope in the next generation of physicians.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Safe to say that anyone undertaking the physician journey does so with intense motivation and book smarts. Still, it can be incredibly hard to stand out. Everyone’s a go-getter, but what’s the X factor?

We asked five veteran doctors who have supervised scores of young medical professionals over the years to tell us about that one person who impressed the hell out of them — what they did, why it made them game changers, and what every doctor can learn from them. Here’s what they said ...
 

Lesson #1: Never Be Scared to Ask

Brien Barnewolt, MD, chairman and chief of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Tufts Medical Center, was very much surprised when a resident named Scott G. Weiner did something unexpected: Go after a job in the fall of his junior year residency instead of following the typical senior year trajectory.

“It’s very unusual for a trainee to apply for a job virtually a year ahead of schedule. But he knew what he wanted,” said Dr. Barnewolt. “I’d never had anybody come to me in that same scenario, and I’ve been doing this a long time.”

Under normal circumstances it would’ve been easy for Dr. Barnewolt to say no. But the unexpected request made him and his colleagues take a closer look, and they were impressed with Dr. Weiner’s skills. That, paired with his ambition and demeanor, compelled them to offer him an early job. But there’s more.

As the next year approached, Dr. Weiner explained he had an opportunity to work in emergency medicine in Tuscany and asked if he could take a 1-year delayed start for the position he applied a year early for.

The department held his position, and upon his return, Dr. Weiner made a lasting impact at Tufts before eventually moving on. “He outgrew us, which is nice to see,” Dr. Barnewolt said. (Dr. Weiner is currently McGraw Distinguished Chair in Emergency Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School.)

Bottom line: Why did Dr. Barnewolt and his colleagues do so much to accommodate a young candidate? Yes, Dr. Weiner was talented, but he was also up-front about his ambitions from the get-go. Dr. Barnewolt said that kind of initiative can only be looked at positively.

“My advice would be, if you see an opportunity or a potential place where you might want to work, put out those feelers, start those conversations,” he said. “It’s not too early, especially in certain specialties, where the job market is very tight. Then, when circumstances change, be open about it and have that conversation. The worst that somebody can say is no, so it never hurts to be honest and open about where you want to go and what you want to be.”
 

Lesson #2: Chase Your Passion ‘Relentlessly’

Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University School of Medicine, runs a laboratory that researches methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Over the years, he’s mentored many doctors but understands the ambitions of young trainees don’t always align with the little free time that they have. “Many of them drop away when you give them a [side] project,” he said.

So when Tori Kinamon asked him to work on an MRSA project — in her first year — he gave her one that focused on researching vertebral osteomyelitis, a bone infection that can coincide with S aureus. What Dr. Fowler didn’t know: Kinamon (now MD) had been a competitive gymnast at Brown and battled her own life-threatening infection with MRSA.

“To my absolute astonishment, not only did she stick to it, but she was able to compile a presentation on the science and gave an oral presentation within a year of walking in the door,” said Dr. Fowler.

She went on to lead an initiative between the National Institutes of Health and US Food and Drug Administration to create endpoints for clinical drug trials, all of which occurred before starting her residency, which she’s about to embark upon.

Dr. Kinamon’s a good example, he said, of what happens when you add genuine passion to book smarts. Those who do always stand out because you can’t fake that. “Find your passion, and then chase it down relentlessly,” he said. “Once you’ve found your passion, things get easy because it stops being work and it starts being something else.”

If you haven’t identified a focus area, Dr. Fowler said to “be agnostic and observant. Keep your eyes open and your options open because you may surprise yourself. It may turn out that you end up liking something a whole lot more than you thought you did.”
 

Lesson #3: When You Say You’ve Always Wanted to Do Something, Do Something

As the chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Northwestern Medicine Canning Thoracic Institute, Scott Budinger, MD, often hears lip service from doctors who want to put their skills to use in their local communities. One of his students actually did it. 

Justin Fiala, MD, a pulmonary, critical care, and sleep specialist at Northwestern Medicine, joined Northwestern as a pulmonary fellow with a big interest in addressing health equity issues.

Dr. Fiala began volunteering with CommunityHealth during his fellowship and saw that many patients of the free Chicago-area clinic needed help with sleep disorders. He launched the organization’s first sleep clinic and its Patient-Centered Apnea Protocols Initiative.

“He developed a plan with some of the partners of the sleep apnea equipment to do home sleep testing for these patients that’s free of cost,” said Dr. Budinger.

Dr. Fiala goes in on Saturdays and runs a free clinic conducting sleep studies for patients and outfits them with devices that they need to improve their conditions, said Dr. Budinger.

“And these patients are the severest of the severe patients,” he said. “These are people that have severe sleep apnea that are driving around the roads, oftentimes don’t have insurance because they’re also precluded from having auto insurance. So, this is really something that not just benefits these patients but benefits our whole community.”

The fact that Dr. Fiala followed through on something that all doctors aspire to do — and in the middle of a very busy training program — is something that Dr. Budinger said makes him stand out in a big way.

“If you talk to any of our trainees or young faculty, everybody’s interested in addressing the issue of health disparities,” said Dr. Budinger. “Justin looked at that and said, ‘Well, you know, I’m not interested in talking about it. What can I do about this problem? And how can I actually get boots on the ground and help?’ That requires a big activation energy that many people don’t have.”
 

Lesson #4: Be a People-Person and a Patient-Person

When hiring employees at American Family Care in Portland, Oregon, Andrew Miller, MD, director of provider training, is always on the lookout for young MDs with emotional intelligence and a good bedside manner. He has been recently blown away, however, by a young physician’s assistant named Joseph Van Bindsbergen, PA-C, who was described as “all-around wonderful” during his reference check.

“Having less than 6 months of experience out of school, he is our highest ranked provider, whether it’s a nurse practitioner, PA, or doctor, in terms of patient satisfaction,” said Dr. Miller. The young PA has an “unprecedented perfect score” on his NPS rating.

Why? Patients said they’ve never felt as heard as they felt with Van Bindsbergen.

“That’s the thing I think that the up-and-coming providers should be focusing on is making your patients feel heard,” explained Dr. Miller. Van Bindsbergen is great at building rapport with a patient, whether they are 6 or 96. “He doesn’t just ask about sore throat symptoms. He asks, ‘what is the impact on your life of the sore throat? How does it affect your family or your work? What do you think this could be besides just strep? What are your concerns?’ ”

Dr. Miller said the magic of Van Bindsbergen is that he has an innate ability to look at patients “not just as a diagnosis but as a person, which they love.”
 

Lesson #5: Remember to Make That Difference With Each Patient

Doctors are used to swooping in and seeing a patient, ordering further testing if needed, and then moving on to the next patient. But one young intern at the start of his medical career broke this mold by giving a very anxious patient some much-needed support.

“There was a resident who was working overnight, and this poor young woman came in who had a new diagnosis of an advanced illness and a lot of anxiety around her condition, the newness of it, and the impact this is going to have on her family and her life,” said Elizabeth Horn Prsic, MD, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and firm chief for medical oncology and the director of Adult Inpatient Palliative Care.

Dr. Prsic found out the next morning that this trainee accompanied the patient to the MRI and held her hand as much as he was allowed to throughout the entire experience. “I was like, ‘wait you went down with her to radiology?’ And he’s like, ‘Yes, I was there the whole time,’ ” she recalled.

This gesture not only helped the patient feel calmer after receiving a potentially life-altering diagnosis but also helped ensure the test results were as clear as possible.

“If the study is not done well and a patient is moving or uncomfortable, it has to be stopped early or paused,” said Dr. Prsic. “Then the study is not very useful. In situations like these, medical decisions may be made based on imperfect data. The fact that we had this full complete good quality scan helped us get the care that she needed in a much timelier manner to help her and to move along the care that she that was medically appropriate for her.”

Dr. Prsic got emotional reflecting on the experience. Working at Yale, she saw a ton of intelligent doctors come through the ranks. But this gesture, she said, should serve as a reminder that “you don’t need to be the smartest person in the room to just be there for a patient. It was pure empathic presence and human connection. It gave me hope in the next generation of physicians.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Safe to say that anyone undertaking the physician journey does so with intense motivation and book smarts. Still, it can be incredibly hard to stand out. Everyone’s a go-getter, but what’s the X factor?

We asked five veteran doctors who have supervised scores of young medical professionals over the years to tell us about that one person who impressed the hell out of them — what they did, why it made them game changers, and what every doctor can learn from them. Here’s what they said ...
 

Lesson #1: Never Be Scared to Ask

Brien Barnewolt, MD, chairman and chief of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Tufts Medical Center, was very much surprised when a resident named Scott G. Weiner did something unexpected: Go after a job in the fall of his junior year residency instead of following the typical senior year trajectory.

“It’s very unusual for a trainee to apply for a job virtually a year ahead of schedule. But he knew what he wanted,” said Dr. Barnewolt. “I’d never had anybody come to me in that same scenario, and I’ve been doing this a long time.”

Under normal circumstances it would’ve been easy for Dr. Barnewolt to say no. But the unexpected request made him and his colleagues take a closer look, and they were impressed with Dr. Weiner’s skills. That, paired with his ambition and demeanor, compelled them to offer him an early job. But there’s more.

As the next year approached, Dr. Weiner explained he had an opportunity to work in emergency medicine in Tuscany and asked if he could take a 1-year delayed start for the position he applied a year early for.

The department held his position, and upon his return, Dr. Weiner made a lasting impact at Tufts before eventually moving on. “He outgrew us, which is nice to see,” Dr. Barnewolt said. (Dr. Weiner is currently McGraw Distinguished Chair in Emergency Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School.)

Bottom line: Why did Dr. Barnewolt and his colleagues do so much to accommodate a young candidate? Yes, Dr. Weiner was talented, but he was also up-front about his ambitions from the get-go. Dr. Barnewolt said that kind of initiative can only be looked at positively.

“My advice would be, if you see an opportunity or a potential place where you might want to work, put out those feelers, start those conversations,” he said. “It’s not too early, especially in certain specialties, where the job market is very tight. Then, when circumstances change, be open about it and have that conversation. The worst that somebody can say is no, so it never hurts to be honest and open about where you want to go and what you want to be.”
 

Lesson #2: Chase Your Passion ‘Relentlessly’

Vance G. Fowler, MD, MHS, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University School of Medicine, runs a laboratory that researches methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Over the years, he’s mentored many doctors but understands the ambitions of young trainees don’t always align with the little free time that they have. “Many of them drop away when you give them a [side] project,” he said.

So when Tori Kinamon asked him to work on an MRSA project — in her first year — he gave her one that focused on researching vertebral osteomyelitis, a bone infection that can coincide with S aureus. What Dr. Fowler didn’t know: Kinamon (now MD) had been a competitive gymnast at Brown and battled her own life-threatening infection with MRSA.

“To my absolute astonishment, not only did she stick to it, but she was able to compile a presentation on the science and gave an oral presentation within a year of walking in the door,” said Dr. Fowler.

She went on to lead an initiative between the National Institutes of Health and US Food and Drug Administration to create endpoints for clinical drug trials, all of which occurred before starting her residency, which she’s about to embark upon.

Dr. Kinamon’s a good example, he said, of what happens when you add genuine passion to book smarts. Those who do always stand out because you can’t fake that. “Find your passion, and then chase it down relentlessly,” he said. “Once you’ve found your passion, things get easy because it stops being work and it starts being something else.”

If you haven’t identified a focus area, Dr. Fowler said to “be agnostic and observant. Keep your eyes open and your options open because you may surprise yourself. It may turn out that you end up liking something a whole lot more than you thought you did.”
 

Lesson #3: When You Say You’ve Always Wanted to Do Something, Do Something

As the chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Northwestern Medicine Canning Thoracic Institute, Scott Budinger, MD, often hears lip service from doctors who want to put their skills to use in their local communities. One of his students actually did it. 

Justin Fiala, MD, a pulmonary, critical care, and sleep specialist at Northwestern Medicine, joined Northwestern as a pulmonary fellow with a big interest in addressing health equity issues.

Dr. Fiala began volunteering with CommunityHealth during his fellowship and saw that many patients of the free Chicago-area clinic needed help with sleep disorders. He launched the organization’s first sleep clinic and its Patient-Centered Apnea Protocols Initiative.

“He developed a plan with some of the partners of the sleep apnea equipment to do home sleep testing for these patients that’s free of cost,” said Dr. Budinger.

Dr. Fiala goes in on Saturdays and runs a free clinic conducting sleep studies for patients and outfits them with devices that they need to improve their conditions, said Dr. Budinger.

“And these patients are the severest of the severe patients,” he said. “These are people that have severe sleep apnea that are driving around the roads, oftentimes don’t have insurance because they’re also precluded from having auto insurance. So, this is really something that not just benefits these patients but benefits our whole community.”

The fact that Dr. Fiala followed through on something that all doctors aspire to do — and in the middle of a very busy training program — is something that Dr. Budinger said makes him stand out in a big way.

“If you talk to any of our trainees or young faculty, everybody’s interested in addressing the issue of health disparities,” said Dr. Budinger. “Justin looked at that and said, ‘Well, you know, I’m not interested in talking about it. What can I do about this problem? And how can I actually get boots on the ground and help?’ That requires a big activation energy that many people don’t have.”
 

Lesson #4: Be a People-Person and a Patient-Person

When hiring employees at American Family Care in Portland, Oregon, Andrew Miller, MD, director of provider training, is always on the lookout for young MDs with emotional intelligence and a good bedside manner. He has been recently blown away, however, by a young physician’s assistant named Joseph Van Bindsbergen, PA-C, who was described as “all-around wonderful” during his reference check.

“Having less than 6 months of experience out of school, he is our highest ranked provider, whether it’s a nurse practitioner, PA, or doctor, in terms of patient satisfaction,” said Dr. Miller. The young PA has an “unprecedented perfect score” on his NPS rating.

Why? Patients said they’ve never felt as heard as they felt with Van Bindsbergen.

“That’s the thing I think that the up-and-coming providers should be focusing on is making your patients feel heard,” explained Dr. Miller. Van Bindsbergen is great at building rapport with a patient, whether they are 6 or 96. “He doesn’t just ask about sore throat symptoms. He asks, ‘what is the impact on your life of the sore throat? How does it affect your family or your work? What do you think this could be besides just strep? What are your concerns?’ ”

Dr. Miller said the magic of Van Bindsbergen is that he has an innate ability to look at patients “not just as a diagnosis but as a person, which they love.”
 

Lesson #5: Remember to Make That Difference With Each Patient

Doctors are used to swooping in and seeing a patient, ordering further testing if needed, and then moving on to the next patient. But one young intern at the start of his medical career broke this mold by giving a very anxious patient some much-needed support.

“There was a resident who was working overnight, and this poor young woman came in who had a new diagnosis of an advanced illness and a lot of anxiety around her condition, the newness of it, and the impact this is going to have on her family and her life,” said Elizabeth Horn Prsic, MD, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and firm chief for medical oncology and the director of Adult Inpatient Palliative Care.

Dr. Prsic found out the next morning that this trainee accompanied the patient to the MRI and held her hand as much as he was allowed to throughout the entire experience. “I was like, ‘wait you went down with her to radiology?’ And he’s like, ‘Yes, I was there the whole time,’ ” she recalled.

This gesture not only helped the patient feel calmer after receiving a potentially life-altering diagnosis but also helped ensure the test results were as clear as possible.

“If the study is not done well and a patient is moving or uncomfortable, it has to be stopped early or paused,” said Dr. Prsic. “Then the study is not very useful. In situations like these, medical decisions may be made based on imperfect data. The fact that we had this full complete good quality scan helped us get the care that she needed in a much timelier manner to help her and to move along the care that she that was medically appropriate for her.”

Dr. Prsic got emotional reflecting on the experience. Working at Yale, she saw a ton of intelligent doctors come through the ranks. But this gesture, she said, should serve as a reminder that “you don’t need to be the smartest person in the room to just be there for a patient. It was pure empathic presence and human connection. It gave me hope in the next generation of physicians.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

167829_photo1_web.jpg

167829_photo2_web.jpg

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

167829_photo1_web.jpg

167829_photo2_web.jpg

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

167829_photo1_web.jpg

167829_photo2_web.jpg

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

167824_Bliddal_Henning_web.jpg

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

167824_Bliddal_Henning_web.jpg

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

167824_Bliddal_Henning_web.jpg

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?

First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.

A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.

Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.

This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. 
 

Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?

The increase in the macronutrient content of the food we eat containing saturated fat and refined carbohydrates and sugars represents a major change and is arguably the smoking gun of the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet. 

Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context. 

So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes. 

Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need? 

Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates. 

In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy). 

If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?

We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available. 

For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western. 

We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients. 

How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!

It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods. 

Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!

Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?

First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.

A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.

Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.

This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. 
 

Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?

The increase in the macronutrient content of the food we eat containing saturated fat and refined carbohydrates and sugars represents a major change and is arguably the smoking gun of the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet. 

Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context. 

So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes. 

Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need? 

Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates. 

In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy). 

If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?

We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available. 

For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western. 

We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients. 

How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!

It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods. 

Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!

Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent headlines scream that we have an obesity problem and that carbs are the culprit for the problem. That leads me to ask: How did we get to blaming carbs as the enemy in the war against obesity?

First, a quick review of the history of diet and macronutrient content.

A long time ago, prehistoric humans foraged and hunted for food. Protein and fat were procured from animal meat, which was very important for encephalization, or evolutionary increase in the complexity or relative size of the brain. Most of the requirements for protein and iron were satisfied by hunting and eating land animals as well as consuming marine life that washed up on shore.

Carbohydrates in the form of plant foods served as the only sources of energy available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers, which offset the high protein content of the rest of their diet. These were only available during spring and summer.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, plant and animal agriculture began, and humans saw a permanent shift in the macronutrient content of our daily intake so that it was more consistent and stable. Initially, the nutrient characteristic changes were subtle, going from wild food to cultivated food with the Agricultural Revolution in the mid-17th century. Then, it changed even more rapidly less than 200 years ago with the Industrial Revolution, resulting in semiprocessed and ultraprocessed foods.

This change in food intake altered human physiology, with major changes in our digestive, immune, and neural physiology and an increase in chronic disease prevalence. The last 50 years has seen an increase in obesity in the United States, along with increases in chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, which leads cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. 
 

Back to Carbohydrates: Do We Need Them? How Much? What Kind?

The increase in the macronutrient content of the food we eat containing saturated fat and refined carbohydrates and sugars represents a major change and is arguably the smoking gun of the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately, ultraprocessed foods have become a staple of the standard American or Western diet. 

Ultraprocessed foods such as cakes, cookies, crackers, sugary breakfast cereals, pizza, potato chips, soft drinks, and ice cream are eons away from our prehistoric diet of wild game, nuts, fruits, and berries, at which time, our digestive immune and nervous systems evolved. The pace at which ultraprocessed foods have entered our diet outpaces the time necessary for adaptation of our digestive systems and genes to these foods. They are indeed pathogenic in this context. 

So when was the time when humans consumed an “optimal” diet? This is hard to say because during the time of brain evolution, we needed protein and iron and succumbed to infections and trauma. In the early 1900s, we continued to succumb to infection until the discovery of antibiotics. Soon thereafter, industrialization and processed foods led to weight gain and the chronic diseases of the cardiovascular system and type 2 diabetes. 

Carbohydrates provide calories and fiber and some micronutrients, which are needed for energy, metabolism, and bowel and immune health. But how much do we need? 

Currently in the United States, the percentage of total food energy derived from the three major macronutrients is: carbohydrates, 51.8%; fat, 32.8%; and protein, 15.4%. Current advice for a healthy diet to lower risk for cardiovascular disease is to limit fat intake to 30% of total energy, protein to 15%, and to increase complex carbohydrates to 55%-60% of total energy. But we also need to qualify this in terms of the quality of the macronutrient, particularly carbohydrates. 

In addition to the quality, the macronutrient content of the diet has varied considerably from our prehistoric times when dietary protein intakes were high at 19%-35% of energy at the expense of carbohydrate (22%-40% of energy). 

If our genes haven’t kept up with industrialization, then why do we need so many carbohydrates to equate to 55%-60% of energy? Is it possible that we are confusing what is available with what we actually need? What do I mean by this?

We certainly have changed the landscape of the world due to agriculture, which has allowed us to procreate and feed ourselves, and certainly, industrialization has increased the availability of accessible cheap food. Protein in the form of meat, fish, and fowl are harder to get in industrialized nations as are fruits and vegetables. These macronutrients were the foods of our ancestors. It may be that a healthy diet is considered the one that is available. 

For instance, the Mediterranean diet is somewhat higher in fat content, 40%-50% fat (mostly mono and unsaturated), and similar in protein content but lower in carbohydrate content than the typical Western diet. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet is lower in fat at 25% total calories, is higher in carbohydrates at 55%, and is lower in protein, but this diet was generated in the United States, therefore it is more Western. 

We need high-quality protein for organ and muscle function, high-quality unsaturated and monounsaturated fats for brain function and cellular functions, and high-quality complex carbohydrates for energy and gut health as well as micronutrients for many cellular functions. A ketogenic diet is not sustainable in the long-term for these reasons: chiefly the need for some carbohydrates for gut health and micronutrients. 

How much carbohydrate content is needed should take into consideration energy expenditure as well as micronutrients and fiber intake. Protein and fat can contribute to energy production but not as readily as carbohydrates that can quickly restore glycogen in the muscle and liver. What’s interesting is that our ancestors were able to hunt and run away from danger with the small amounts of carbohydrates from plants and berries plus the protein and fat intake from animals and fish — but the Olympics weren’t a thing then!

It may be another 200,000 years before our genes catch up to ultraprocessed foods and the simple carbohydrates and sugars contained in these products. Evidence suggests that ultraprocessed foods cause inflammation in organs like the liver, adipose tissue, the heart, and even the brain. In the brain, this inflammation may be what’s causing us to defend a higher body weight set point in this environment of easily obtained highly palatable ultraprocessed foods. 

Let’s not wait until our genes catch up and our bodies tolerate junk food without disease progression. It could be like waiting for Godot!

Dr. Apovian is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. She disclosed ties to Altimmune, CinFina Pharma, Cowen and Company, EPG Communication Holdings, Form Health, Gelesis, and L-Nutra.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

167822_golfphoto_web.jpg

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

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 X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

167822_golfphoto_web.jpg

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

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 X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

167822_golfphoto_web.jpg

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

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 X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at Arturo.ai.medtech@gmail.com or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at Arturo.ai.medtech@gmail.com or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at Arturo.ai.medtech@gmail.com or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.