Family Practice News

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Image

Disable zoom

Off

DENVER — A medical education initiative for internal medicine residents and medical students that offers instruction on assessing common neurologic conditions boosted trainees’ confidence in caring for neurology patients and could help address the US neurologist shortage, a new report suggested.

Bedside Rounding Alliance for Internal Medicine and Neurology Residents (BRAINs) moves training from the lecture hall to the bedside, offering instruction on obtaining a focused neurologic history and performing a focused neurologic physical exam for common neurologic symptoms.

Almost 100% of trainees surveyed gave the program a favorable rating, citing patient exposure and bedside training from neurology educators as keys to its success.

As internal medicine providers are often “the first to lay eyes” on patients with a neurology complaint, it’s important they “have a basic level of comfort” in addressing patients’ common questions and concerns, study author Prashanth Rajarajan, MD, PhD, a resident in the Department of Neurology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Addressing ‘Neurophobia’

Neurology is often viewed by medical trainees as the most difficult subspecialty, Dr. Rajarajan said. Many have what he calls “neurophobia,” which he defines as “a discomfort with assessing and treating neurologic complaints.”

A survey at his institution showed 62% of internal medicine residents lacked the confidence to diagnose and treat neurologic diseases, he reported.

BRAINs is a structured neurology trainee-led, inpatient bedside teaching session for internal medicine residents, medical students, and others that aims to increase trainees’ confidence in assessing patients with common neurologic symptoms.

The program includes a biweekly 45-minute session. Most of the session is spent at the bedside and involves demonstrations and practice of a focused neurologic history and physical exam.

Participants receive feedback from educators, typically neurology residents or fellows in epilepsy, stroke, or some other neurology subspecialty. It also includes a short discussion on pertinent diagnostics, management, and other topics.

Surveys evaluating the program and teaching skill development were completed by 59 residents and 15 neurology educators who participated in BRAINs between 2022 and 2024.

Over 90% of trainees (54) agreed BRAINs sessions met the program’s objective (5 were neutral); 49 agreed it increased confidence in taking a neuro history (9 were neutral and 1 disagreed); 56 felt it boosted their confidence in doing a neuro exam (3 were neutral); and 56 said BRAINs is more effective than traditional lecture-based didactics (3 were neutral).

All the residents rated the material covered as appropriate for their level of training; 88% considered the 45-minute session length appropriate; and 98% had a favorable impression of the program as a whole.

When asked to identify the most helpful aspect of the program, 82% cited more patient exposure and 81% more bedside teaching.

All educators reported that the sessions were an effective way to practice near-peer teaching skills. Most (87%) felt the experience was more effective at accomplishing learning objectives than preparing and giving traditional didactic lectures, and 80% agreed it also gave them an opportunity to get to know their medical colleagues.
 

Use It or Lose It

Dr. Rajarajan noted that the program doesn’t require significant planning or extra staff, is not resource-intensive, and can be adapted to different services such as emergency departments and other learner populations.

But time will tell if the newfound confidence of those taking the program actually lasts.

“You have to keep using it,” he said. “You use it or lose it when comes to these skills.”

Commenting on the initiative, Denney Zimmerman, DO, Neurocritical Care Faculty, Blount Memorial Hospital, Maryville, Tennessee, and cochair of the AAN session featuring the study, called the program a good example of one way to counteract “neurophobia” and address the widespread neurologist shortage in the United States.

A 2019 AAN report showed that by 2025, almost every state in the United States will have a mismatch between the number of practicing neurologists and the demand from patients with neurologic conditions. The report offered several ways to address the shortage, including more neurology-focused training for internal medicine doctors during their residency.

“They’re usually on the front line, both in the hospital and in the clinics, and can help expedite patients who need to be seen by neurology sooner rather than later,” Dr. Zimmerman said.

Dr. Zimmerman noted that the study assessed how well participants perceived the program but not whether it improved their skills.

He pointed out that different groups may assess different diseases during their training session. “I think it’s important to ensure you’re hitting all the major topics.”

The study received funding from MGB Centers of Expertise Education Grant. Drs. Rajarajan and Zimmerman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently read an op-ed piece in which the author wondered if any young people entering the practice of medicine felt that they were answering a “calling.” I suspect that there will continue to be, and will always be, idealists whose primary motivation for choosing medicine is that they will be healing the sick or at least providing comfort to the suffering. I occasionally hear that about a former patient who has been inspired by a personal or familial experience with a serious illness.

Unfortunately, I suspect those who feel called are the providers most likely to feel discouraged and frustrated by the current state of primary care. Luckily, I never felt a calling. For me, primary care pediatrics was a job. One that l felt obligated to perform to the best of my ability. Mine was not a calling but an inherited philosophy that work in itself was virtuous. A work ethic, if you will. Pediatrics offered the additional reward that, if well done, it might help some parents and their children feel a little better.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

Fifty years ago I was not alone in treating medicine as a job. Most physicians were self-employed. Although there were exceptions like Albert Schweitzer, even those of us with a calling had to obey the basic rules of business as it applied to medicine. We were employer and employee and had to understand the critical factors of overhead, profit, and loss.

I have burdened you with this little history recitation not to suggest that things were better in the good old days, but to provide a stepping stone into the murky and uncomfortable topic of primary care physician (PCP) compensation. Because almost three quarters of you work for a hospital, health system, or corporate entity, I am going to illuminate our journey by leaning on the advice of an international company with 7000 employees and revenue of 2.5 billion dollars that considers itself a “global leader” in management consulting. Your employer is listening to some management consultant and it may help us to view your compensation from someone on their side of the table.

First, you should be aware that “most health systems lose money on their primary care operations — up to $200,000 or more per primary care physician.” This may help explain why despite being in short supply, you and most PCPs feel undervalued. However, if we are such losers, we must provide something(s) that the systems are seeking. It is likely that the system is looking to tout its ability to provide comprehensive care and demonstrate that it has a patient base broad enough to warrant attention and provide bargaining leverage on volume discounts.

The system also may want to minimize competition by absorbing the remaining PCPs in the community into their system. With you outside of the system, it had less control over your compensation than it does when you are under its umbrella.

Your employer may want to grow and feed its specialty care network, and it sees PCPs as having the fuel stored in their patient volume to do just that. In simplest and most cynical terms, the systems are willing to take a loss on us less profitable high-volume grunts in order to reap the profits of the lower-volume high-profitability specialties and subspecialties.

So that’s why you as a PCP have any value at all to a large healthcare system. But, it means that to maintain your value to the system you must continue to provide the volume it anticipates and needs. While the system may have been willing to accept some degrees of unprofitability when it hired you, there are limits. And, we shouldn’t be surprised if they continue to urge or demand that we narrow the gap between the revenue we generate and the costs that we incur, ie, our overhead.

In Part 2 of this series, I’m going to discuss the collateral damage that occurs when volume and overhead collide in an environment that claims to be committed to patient care.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I recently read an op-ed piece in which the author wondered if any young people entering the practice of medicine felt that they were answering a “calling.” I suspect that there will continue to be, and will always be, idealists whose primary motivation for choosing medicine is that they will be healing the sick or at least providing comfort to the suffering. I occasionally hear that about a former patient who has been inspired by a personal or familial experience with a serious illness.

Unfortunately, I suspect those who feel called are the providers most likely to feel discouraged and frustrated by the current state of primary care. Luckily, I never felt a calling. For me, primary care pediatrics was a job. One that l felt obligated to perform to the best of my ability. Mine was not a calling but an inherited philosophy that work in itself was virtuous. A work ethic, if you will. Pediatrics offered the additional reward that, if well done, it might help some parents and their children feel a little better.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

Fifty years ago I was not alone in treating medicine as a job. Most physicians were self-employed. Although there were exceptions like Albert Schweitzer, even those of us with a calling had to obey the basic rules of business as it applied to medicine. We were employer and employee and had to understand the critical factors of overhead, profit, and loss.

I have burdened you with this little history recitation not to suggest that things were better in the good old days, but to provide a stepping stone into the murky and uncomfortable topic of primary care physician (PCP) compensation. Because almost three quarters of you work for a hospital, health system, or corporate entity, I am going to illuminate our journey by leaning on the advice of an international company with 7000 employees and revenue of 2.5 billion dollars that considers itself a “global leader” in management consulting. Your employer is listening to some management consultant and it may help us to view your compensation from someone on their side of the table.

First, you should be aware that “most health systems lose money on their primary care operations — up to $200,000 or more per primary care physician.” This may help explain why despite being in short supply, you and most PCPs feel undervalued. However, if we are such losers, we must provide something(s) that the systems are seeking. It is likely that the system is looking to tout its ability to provide comprehensive care and demonstrate that it has a patient base broad enough to warrant attention and provide bargaining leverage on volume discounts.

The system also may want to minimize competition by absorbing the remaining PCPs in the community into their system. With you outside of the system, it had less control over your compensation than it does when you are under its umbrella.

Your employer may want to grow and feed its specialty care network, and it sees PCPs as having the fuel stored in their patient volume to do just that. In simplest and most cynical terms, the systems are willing to take a loss on us less profitable high-volume grunts in order to reap the profits of the lower-volume high-profitability specialties and subspecialties.

So that’s why you as a PCP have any value at all to a large healthcare system. But, it means that to maintain your value to the system you must continue to provide the volume it anticipates and needs. While the system may have been willing to accept some degrees of unprofitability when it hired you, there are limits. And, we shouldn’t be surprised if they continue to urge or demand that we narrow the gap between the revenue we generate and the costs that we incur, ie, our overhead.

In Part 2 of this series, I’m going to discuss the collateral damage that occurs when volume and overhead collide in an environment that claims to be committed to patient care.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I recently read an op-ed piece in which the author wondered if any young people entering the practice of medicine felt that they were answering a “calling.” I suspect that there will continue to be, and will always be, idealists whose primary motivation for choosing medicine is that they will be healing the sick or at least providing comfort to the suffering. I occasionally hear that about a former patient who has been inspired by a personal or familial experience with a serious illness.

Unfortunately, I suspect those who feel called are the providers most likely to feel discouraged and frustrated by the current state of primary care. Luckily, I never felt a calling. For me, primary care pediatrics was a job. One that l felt obligated to perform to the best of my ability. Mine was not a calling but an inherited philosophy that work in itself was virtuous. A work ethic, if you will. Pediatrics offered the additional reward that, if well done, it might help some parents and their children feel a little better.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

Fifty years ago I was not alone in treating medicine as a job. Most physicians were self-employed. Although there were exceptions like Albert Schweitzer, even those of us with a calling had to obey the basic rules of business as it applied to medicine. We were employer and employee and had to understand the critical factors of overhead, profit, and loss.

I have burdened you with this little history recitation not to suggest that things were better in the good old days, but to provide a stepping stone into the murky and uncomfortable topic of primary care physician (PCP) compensation. Because almost three quarters of you work for a hospital, health system, or corporate entity, I am going to illuminate our journey by leaning on the advice of an international company with 7000 employees and revenue of 2.5 billion dollars that considers itself a “global leader” in management consulting. Your employer is listening to some management consultant and it may help us to view your compensation from someone on their side of the table.

First, you should be aware that “most health systems lose money on their primary care operations — up to $200,000 or more per primary care physician.” This may help explain why despite being in short supply, you and most PCPs feel undervalued. However, if we are such losers, we must provide something(s) that the systems are seeking. It is likely that the system is looking to tout its ability to provide comprehensive care and demonstrate that it has a patient base broad enough to warrant attention and provide bargaining leverage on volume discounts.

The system also may want to minimize competition by absorbing the remaining PCPs in the community into their system. With you outside of the system, it had less control over your compensation than it does when you are under its umbrella.

Your employer may want to grow and feed its specialty care network, and it sees PCPs as having the fuel stored in their patient volume to do just that. In simplest and most cynical terms, the systems are willing to take a loss on us less profitable high-volume grunts in order to reap the profits of the lower-volume high-profitability specialties and subspecialties.

So that’s why you as a PCP have any value at all to a large healthcare system. But, it means that to maintain your value to the system you must continue to provide the volume it anticipates and needs. While the system may have been willing to accept some degrees of unprofitability when it hired you, there are limits. And, we shouldn’t be surprised if they continue to urge or demand that we narrow the gap between the revenue we generate and the costs that we incur, ie, our overhead.

In Part 2 of this series, I’m going to discuss the collateral damage that occurs when volume and overhead collide in an environment that claims to be committed to patient care.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.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.

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.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the pendulum has swung against recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes, clinicians should focus on other ways to help patients avoid cardiovascular events.

A landmark study published in 1988 in The New England Journal of Medicine reported an astonishing 44% drop in the number of heart attacks among US male physicians aged 40-84 years who took aspirin.

Aspirin subsequently became a daily habit for millions of Americans. In 2017, nearly a quarter of Americans over age 40 who did not have cardiovascular disease (CVD) took the drug, and over 20% of those were doing so without a physician’s recommendation.

But in 2018, three studies (ASCEND, ARRIVE, and ASPREE) showed a stunning reversal in the purported benefit, according to John Wong, MD, vice-chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The calculus for taking aspirin appeared to have changed dramatically: The drug decreased the risk for myocardial infarction by only 11% among study subjects, while its potential harms were much more pronounced.

According to Dr. Wong, who is also a professor of medicine and a primary care physician at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, patients taking low-dose aspirin had a 58% increase in their risk for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with those not on aspirin, as well as a 31% increased risk for intracranial bleeding.

Did aspirin suddenly lose its magic powers in preventing heart attacks? Dr. Wong attributed the decline in effectiveness of aspirin in preventing heart attacks to other “primary care interventions that help reduce the cardiovascular disease risk in patients who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke.”

Fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, more realize the benefits of a healthy diet and physical activity, and the medical community better recognizes and treats hypertension. New classes of medications such as statins for high cholesterol are also moving the needle.

But a newer class of drugs may provide a safer replacement for aspirin, according to Muhammad Maqsood, MD, a cardiology fellow at DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors are effective in lowering the risk for heart attack and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome or those undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions.

“They have shown a better bleeding profile, especially clopidogrel compared to aspirin,” Dr. Maqsood said.

However, the findings come from trials of patients who already had CVD, so results cannot yet be extrapolated to primary prevention. Dr. Maqsood said the gap highlights the need for clinical trials that evaluate P2Y12 inhibitors for primary prevention, but no such study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov.
 

Benefits Persist for Some Patients

The new evidence led the USPSTF to publish new guidelines in 2022, downgrading the recommendation for low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention. Previously, the organization stated that clinicians “should” initiate daily low-dose aspirin in adults aged 50-59 years and “consider” its use in adults aged 60-69 years whose 10-year risk for CVD was higher than 10%.

The updated guidelines stated that the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin in adults aged 40-59 years with a greater than 10% risk for CVD “should be an individual one,” based on professional judgment and individual patient preferences. The USPSTF also recommended against the use of aspirin in anyone over the age of 60.

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association also dialed down previously strong recommendations on low-dose aspirin to a more nuanced recommendation stating, “low-dose aspirin might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults 40-70 years of age.”

With a varying age limit for recommending aspirin, clinicians may take into consideration several variables.

“Is there a magic age? I don’t think there is,” said Douglas Lloyd-Jones, the former president of the American Heart Association and current chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and a practicing cardiologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois.

For a patient over age 60 who is at a high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes, is unable to quit smoking, and is not likely to experience problematic bleeding, a clinician might recommend aspirin, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. He said he sometimes also assesses coronary artery calcium to guide his clinical decisions: If elevated (an Agatston score above 100), he might recommend low-dose aspirin.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones also reiterated that patients should continue taking low-dose aspirin if they have already experienced a heart attack, stroke, episode of atrial fibrillation, or required a vascular stent.

Unless a patient with established CVD has intractable bleeding, “the aspirin is really for life,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said. Patients who have a stent or who are at high risk for recurrence of stroke are more likely to experience thrombosis, and aspirin can decrease the risk.

“In our cardiology community, we don’t just strictly use the age of 70; the decision is always individualized,” Dr. Maqsood said.

Dr. Wong said primary care providers should focus on the USPSTF’s other recommendations that address CVD (Table), such as smoking cessation and screening for hypertension.

“I think our challenge is that we have so many of those A and B recommendations,” Dr. Wong said. “And I think part of the challenge for us is working with the patient to find out what’s most important to them.”

Discussing heart attacks and strokes often will strike a chord with patients because someone they know has been affected.

Dr. Maqsood emphasized the importance of behavioral interventions, such as helping patients decrease their body mass index and control their hyperlipidemia.

“The behavioral interventions are those which are the most cost-effective without any side effects,” he said.

His other piece of advice is to inquire with younger patients about a family history of heart attacks. Familial hypercholesteremia is unlikely to be controlled by diet and exercise and will need medical therapy.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones described the discussions he has with patients about preventing heart attacks as “the most important conversations we can have: Remember that cardiovascular disease is still the leading cause of death and disability in the world and in the United States.”

Dr. Wong, Dr. Lloyd-Jones, and Dr. Maqsood reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Decreased total sleep time (TST) and increased resting heart rate (RHR), heart rate variability (HRV), and average nightly respiratory rate (ARR) as measured by a multisensor device worn during sleep accurately correlated with self-reported stress levels in college students, a new study suggests. Investigators say the findings support the potential utility of wearable devices to collect data that identify young adults at greatest risk for stress. 

METHODOLOGY:

• First-semester college students (n = 525; aged 18-24 years) enrolled in the Lived Experiences measured Using Rings Study (LEMURS) provided continuous biometric data via a wearable device (Oura Ring; Oura Health) and answered weekly surveys regarding stress levels.
• The researchers used mixed-effects regression models to identify associations between perceived stress scores and average nightly TST, RHR, HRV, and ARR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Consistent associations were found between perceived stress scores and TST, RHR, HRV, and ARR, which persisted even after controlling for gender and week of the semester.
• Risk for moderate to high stress decreased by 38% with every additional hour of TST (P < .01) and by 1.2% with each millisecond increase in HRV (P < .05).
• Moderate to high stress risk increased by 3.6% with each beat-per-minute-increase in RHR (P < .01) and by 23% with each additional breath-per-minute increase in ARR (P < .01).
• Participants who identified as female, nonbinary, or transgender reported significantly higher stress throughout the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present work highlights the potential utility of monitoring sleep, suggesting that these measures may identify within individual changes that are concerning for stress. As the demand for mental health services grows, determining which wearable-derived sleep estimates provide information about well-being and can predict worsening mental health in young adults is an important area of study,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Laura S.P. Bloomfield, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, was published online in PLOS Digital Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study focused on raw sleep measures; the researchers suggest that future studies evaluate additional sleep variables (eg, daytime naps), which have been associated with mental health in college students. In addition, the researchers did not have stress or sleep data before participants started college, so they could not assess the impact of starting college on participants’ sleep.

DISCLOSURES:

Bloomfield was supported by the Gund Fellowship and received a partial salary from the Mass Mutual Insurance Wellness Initiative. Other authors’ funding is reported in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Decreased total sleep time (TST) and increased resting heart rate (RHR), heart rate variability (HRV), and average nightly respiratory rate (ARR) as measured by a multisensor device worn during sleep accurately correlated with self-reported stress levels in college students, a new study suggests. Investigators say the findings support the potential utility of wearable devices to collect data that identify young adults at greatest risk for stress. 

METHODOLOGY:

• First-semester college students (n = 525; aged 18-24 years) enrolled in the Lived Experiences measured Using Rings Study (LEMURS) provided continuous biometric data via a wearable device (Oura Ring; Oura Health) and answered weekly surveys regarding stress levels.
• The researchers used mixed-effects regression models to identify associations between perceived stress scores and average nightly TST, RHR, HRV, and ARR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Consistent associations were found between perceived stress scores and TST, RHR, HRV, and ARR, which persisted even after controlling for gender and week of the semester.
• Risk for moderate to high stress decreased by 38% with every additional hour of TST (P < .01) and by 1.2% with each millisecond increase in HRV (P < .05).
• Moderate to high stress risk increased by 3.6% with each beat-per-minute-increase in RHR (P < .01) and by 23% with each additional breath-per-minute increase in ARR (P < .01).
• Participants who identified as female, nonbinary, or transgender reported significantly higher stress throughout the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present work highlights the potential utility of monitoring sleep, suggesting that these measures may identify within individual changes that are concerning for stress. As the demand for mental health services grows, determining which wearable-derived sleep estimates provide information about well-being and can predict worsening mental health in young adults is an important area of study,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Laura S.P. Bloomfield, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, was published online in PLOS Digital Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study focused on raw sleep measures; the researchers suggest that future studies evaluate additional sleep variables (eg, daytime naps), which have been associated with mental health in college students. In addition, the researchers did not have stress or sleep data before participants started college, so they could not assess the impact of starting college on participants’ sleep.

DISCLOSURES:

Bloomfield was supported by the Gund Fellowship and received a partial salary from the Mass Mutual Insurance Wellness Initiative. Other authors’ funding is reported in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Decreased total sleep time (TST) and increased resting heart rate (RHR), heart rate variability (HRV), and average nightly respiratory rate (ARR) as measured by a multisensor device worn during sleep accurately correlated with self-reported stress levels in college students, a new study suggests. Investigators say the findings support the potential utility of wearable devices to collect data that identify young adults at greatest risk for stress. 

METHODOLOGY:

• First-semester college students (n = 525; aged 18-24 years) enrolled in the Lived Experiences measured Using Rings Study (LEMURS) provided continuous biometric data via a wearable device (Oura Ring; Oura Health) and answered weekly surveys regarding stress levels.
• The researchers used mixed-effects regression models to identify associations between perceived stress scores and average nightly TST, RHR, HRV, and ARR.

TAKEAWAY:

• Consistent associations were found between perceived stress scores and TST, RHR, HRV, and ARR, which persisted even after controlling for gender and week of the semester.
• Risk for moderate to high stress decreased by 38% with every additional hour of TST (P < .01) and by 1.2% with each millisecond increase in HRV (P < .05).
• Moderate to high stress risk increased by 3.6% with each beat-per-minute-increase in RHR (P < .01) and by 23% with each additional breath-per-minute increase in ARR (P < .01).
• Participants who identified as female, nonbinary, or transgender reported significantly higher stress throughout the study.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present work highlights the potential utility of monitoring sleep, suggesting that these measures may identify within individual changes that are concerning for stress. As the demand for mental health services grows, determining which wearable-derived sleep estimates provide information about well-being and can predict worsening mental health in young adults is an important area of study,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Laura S.P. Bloomfield, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, was published online in PLOS Digital Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study focused on raw sleep measures; the researchers suggest that future studies evaluate additional sleep variables (eg, daytime naps), which have been associated with mental health in college students. In addition, the researchers did not have stress or sleep data before participants started college, so they could not assess the impact of starting college on participants’ sleep.

DISCLOSURES:

Bloomfield was supported by the Gund Fellowship and received a partial salary from the Mass Mutual Insurance Wellness Initiative. Other authors’ funding is reported in the original article.

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.

An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.

The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country. 

Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.

They focused on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics during the first 3 days of hospital admission, before microbiologic test results came back, and when clinicians are likely to err on the side of caution and prescribe one of the drugs, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. 

“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said. 

Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said. 

“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said. 

The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection). 

Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic. 

But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%. 

An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level. 

Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization. 

For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001). 

“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.

“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. 

The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”

The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group. 

“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.” 

The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.

The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country. 

Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.

They focused on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics during the first 3 days of hospital admission, before microbiologic test results came back, and when clinicians are likely to err on the side of caution and prescribe one of the drugs, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. 

“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said. 

Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said. 

“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said. 

The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection). 

Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic. 

But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%. 

An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level. 

Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization. 

For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001). 

“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.

“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. 

The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”

The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group. 

“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.” 

The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An algorithm-driven risk assessment embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) helped clinicians reduce inappropriate broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by 17.4% and 28.4% in patients with UTIs and pneumonia, respectively, according to two related studies published in JAMA.

The randomized control trials included more than 200,000 adult patients with non–life threatening pneumonia or urinary tract infections (UTIs) in 59 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare across the country. 

Researchers analyzed baseline prescribing behaviors over an 18-month period starting in April 2017, and data from a 15-month period of implementation of the new antibiotic system starting in April 2019.

They focused on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics during the first 3 days of hospital admission, before microbiologic test results came back, and when clinicians are likely to err on the side of caution and prescribe one of the drugs, according to lead author Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, associate medical director of epidemiology and infection prevention, infectious diseases at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. 

“When a patient comes in with pneumonia or a UTI, it’s precisely because we are concerned that our patients have a multidrug-resistant organism that we end up using broad-spectrum antibiotics,” she said. 

Despite growing awareness of the need to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, clinicians have still been slow to adopt a more conservative approach to prescribing, Dr. Gohil said. 

“What physicians have been needing is something to hang their hat on, to be able to say, ‘Okay, well, this one’s a low-risk person,’ ” Dr. Gohil said. 

The trials compared the impact of routine antibiotic activities with a stewardship bundle, called INSPIRE (Intelligent Stewardship Prompts to Improve Real-time Empiric Antibiotic Selection). 

Both groups received educational materials, quarterly coaching calls, prospective evaluations for antibiotic use, and were required to select a reason for prescribing an antibiotic. 

But prescribers in the intervention group took part in monthly coaching calls and feedback reports. In addition, if a clinician ordered a broad-spectrum antibiotic to treat pneumonia or a UTI outside of the intensive care unit within 72 hours of admission, an EHR prompt would pop up. The pop-up suggested a standard-spectrum antibiotic instead if patient risk for developing a multidrug-resistant (MDRO) version of either condition was less than 10%. 

An algorithm used data from the EHR calculated risk, using factors like patient demographics and history and MDRO infection at the community and hospital level. 

Prescribing rates were based on the number of days a patient received a broad-spectrum antibiotic during the first 72 hours of hospitalization. 

For the UTI intervention group, rates dropped by 17.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and 28.4% reduction in the pneumonia group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; P < .001). 

“We cannot know which element — prompt, education, or feedback — worked, but the data suggests that the prompt was the main driver,” Dr. Gohil said.

“In antibiotic stewardship, we have learned not only that doctors want to do the right thing, but that we as stewards need to make it easy for them do the right thing,” said Paul Pottinger, MD, professor of medicine at the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle. 

The prompt “is your easy button,” said Dr. Pottinger, who was not involved with either study. “The researchers made it simple, fast, and straightforward, so people don’t have to think about it too much.”

The studies showed similar safety outcomes for the control and intervention groups. Among patients with a UTI, those in the control group were transferred to the ICU after an average of 6.6 days compared to 7 days in the intervention group. Among patients with pneumonia, the average days to ICU transfer were 6.5 for the control group and 7.1 for the intervention group. 

“This study is a proof of concept that physicians want to do the right thing and are willing to trust this information,” Dr. Pottinger said. “And this also shows us that this tool can be refined and made even more precise over time.” 

The study was funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was led by the University of California Irvine, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, and HCA Healthcare System. Various authors report funding and support from entities outside the submitted work. The full list can be found with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Companies selling gut microbiome tests directly to consumers offer up a variety of claims to promote their products.

“We analyze the trillions of microbes in your gut microflora and craft a unique formula for your unique gut needs,” one says. “Get actionable dietary, supplement, and lifestyle recommendations from our microbiome experts based on your results, tailored to mom and baby’s biomarkers. ... Any family member like dads or siblings are welcome too,” says another.

The companies assert that they can improve gut health by offering individuals personalized treatments based on their gut microbiome test results. The trouble is, no provider, company, or technology can reliably do that yet.
 

Clinical Implications, Not Applications

The microbiome is the “constellation of microorganisms that call the human body home,” including many strains of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. That constellation comprises some 39 trillion cells.

Although knowledge is increasing on the oral, cutaneous, and vaginal microbiomes, the gut microbiome is arguably the most studied. However, while research is increasingly demonstrating that the gut microbiome has clinical implications, much work needs to be done before reliable applications based on that research are available.

But lack of scientific evidence and validity hasn’t stopped a growing number of companies across the globe from offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, MD, AGAF, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“If you go to their websites, even if it’s not stated overtly, these companies at least give the impression that they’re providing actionable, useful information,” he said. “The sites recommend microbiome testing, and often supplements, probiotics, or other products that they sell. And consumers are told they need to be tested again once they start taking any of these products to see if they’re receiving any benefit.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues authored a recent article in Science  arguing that DTC microbiome tests “lack analytical and clinical validity” — and yet regulation of the industry has been “generally ignored.” They identified 31 companies globally, 17 of which are based in the United States, claiming to have products and/or services aimed at changing the intestinal microbiome.
 

Unreliable, Unregulated

The lack of reliability has been shown by experts who have tested the tests.

“People have taken the same stool sample, sent it to multiple companies, and gotten different results back,” Dr. von Rosenvinge said. “People also have taken a stool sample and sent it to the same company under two different names and received two different results. If the test is unreliable at its foundational level, it’s hard to use it in any clinical way.”

Test users’ methods and the companies’ procedures can affect the results, Dina Kao, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, said in an interview.

“So many biases can be introduced at every single step of the way, starting from how the stool sample was collected and how it’s preserved or not being preserved, because that can introduce a lot of noise that would change the analyses. Which primer they’re using to amplify the signals and which bioinformatic pipeline they use are also important,” said Dr. Kao, who presented at the recent Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM).

Different investigators and companies use different technologies, so it’s very difficult to compare them and to create a standard, said Mahmoud Ghannoum, PhD, a professor in the dermatology and pathology departments at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medical Mycology at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

The complexity of the gut microbiome makes test standardization more difficult than it is when just one organism is involved, Dr. Ghannoum, who chaired the antifungal subcommittee at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, said in an interview.

“Even though many researchers are focusing on bacteria, we also have fungi and viruses. We need standardization of methods for testing these organisms if we want to have regulations,” said Dr. Ghannoum, a cofounder of BIOHM, a microbiome company that offers nondiagnostic tests and markets a variety of probiotics, prebiotics, and immunity supplements. BIOHM is one of the 31 companies identified by Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues, as noted above.

Dr. Ghannoum believes that taking a systematic approach could facilitate standardization and, ultimately, regulation of the DTC microbiome testing products. He and his colleagues described such an approach by outlining the stages for designing probiotics capable of modulating the microbiome in chronic diseases, using Crohn’s disease as a model. Their strategy involved the following steps:

• Using primary microbiome data to identify, by abundance, the microorganisms underlying dysbiosis.
• Gaining insight into the interactions among the identified pathogens.
• Conducting a correlation analysis to identify potential lead probiotic strains that antagonize these pathogens and discovering metabolites that can interrupt their interactions.
• Creating a prototype formulation for testing.
• Validating the efficacy of the candidate formulation via preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing.
• Conducting clinical testing.

Dr. Ghannoum recommends that companies use a similar process “to provide evidence that what they are doing will be helpful, not only for them but also for the reputation of the whole industry.”
 

Potential Pitfalls

Whether test results from commercial companies are positioned as wellness aids or diagnostic tools, providing advice based on the results “is where the danger can really come in,” Dr. Kao said. “There is still so much we don’t know about which microbial signatures are associated with each condition.”

“Even when we have a solution, like the Crohn’s exclusion diet, a physician doesn’t know enough of the nuances to give advice to a patient,” she said. “That really should be done under the guidance of an expert dietitian. And if a company is selling probiotics, I personally feel that’s not ethical. I’m pretty sure there’s always going to be some kind of conflict of interest.”

Supplements and probiotics are generally safe, but negative consequences can occur, Dr. von Rosenvinge noted.

“We occasionally see people who end up with liver problems as a result of certain supplements, and rarely, probiotics have been associated with infections from those organisms, usually in those with a compromised immune system,” he said.

Other risks include people taking supplements or probiotics when they actually have a medically treatable condition or delays in diagnosis of a potentially serious underlying condition, such as colon cancer, he said. Some patients may stop taking their traditional medication in favor of taking supplements or may experience a drug-supplement interaction if they take both.
 

What to Tell Patients

“Doctors should be advising against this testing for their patients,” gastroenterologist Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “I explain to patients that these tests are not validated and are clinically meaningless data and not worth the money. There is a reason they are not covered by insurance.

Kelly_Colleen_WEB.jpg

“Recommendations to purchase probiotics or supplements manufactured by the testing company to ‘restore a balanced or healthy microbiome’ clearly seem like a scam,” she added. “I believe some of these companies are capitalizing on patients who are desperate for answers to explain chronic symptoms, such as bloating in irritable bowel syndrome.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge said that the message to patients “is that the science isn’t there yet to support using the results of these tests in a meaningful way. We believe the microbiome is very important in health and disease, but the tests themselves in their current state are not as reliable and reproducible as we would like.”

When patients come in with test results, the first question a clinician should ask is what led them to seek out this type of information in the first place, Dr. von Rosenvinge said.

“Our patient focus groups suggested that many have not gotten clear, satisfactory answers from traditional medicine,” he said. “We don’t have a single test that says, yes, you have irritable bowel syndrome, or no, you don’t. We might suggest things that are helpful for some people and are less helpful for others.”

Dr. Kelly said she worries that “there are snake oil salesmen and cons out there who will gladly take your money. These may be smart people, capable of doing very high-level testing, and even producing very detailed and accurate results, but that doesn’t mean we know what to do with them.”

She hopes to see a microbiome-based diagnostic test in the future, particularly if the ability to therapeutically manipulate the gut microbiome in various diseases becomes a reality.
 

Educate Clinicians, Companies

More education is needed on the subject, so we can become “microbial clinicians,” Dr. Kao said.

“The microbiome never came up when I was going through my medical education,” she said. But we, and the next generation of physicians, “need to at least be able to understand the basics.

“Hopefully, one day, we will be in a position where we can have meaningful interpretations of the test results and make some kind of meaningful dietary interventions,” Dr. Kao added.

As for clinicians who are currently ordering these tests and products directly from the DTC companies, Dr. Kao said, “I roll my eyes.”

Dr. Ghannoum reiterated that companies offering microbiome tests and products also need to be educated and encouraged to use systematic approaches to product development and interpretation.

“Companies should be open to calls from clinicians and be ready to explain findings on a report, as well as the basis for any recommendations,” he said.

Dr. von Rosenvinge, Dr. Kao, and Dr. Kelly had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ghannoum is a cofounder of BIOHM.