Commentary

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris reporting back after attending the New York Lung Cancer Foundation Summit here in New York. A large amount of discussion went on, but as usual, I was most interested in the perioperative space.

In previous videos, I’ve talked about this ongoing discussion of whether you should operate and give adjuvant therapy or give neoadjuvant therapy, and I’ve addressed that already. One thing I want to bring up – and as we move off of that argument, which frankly doesn’t have an answer today, with neoadjuvant therapy, having all the data to support it – is what are the patterns of recurrence now that we have more successful systemic therapies, both targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors?

I was taught early on by my surgical mentors that the issue here was systemic control. While they could do very successful surgery to get high levels of local control, they could not control systemic disease. Sadly, the tools we had early on with chemotherapy were just not good enough. Suddenly, we have better tools to control systemic spread. In the past, the vast majority of occurrences were systemic; they’re now local.

What I think we need to do as a group of practitioners trying to deal with the problems getting in the way of curing our patients is look at what the issue is now. Frankly, the big issue now, as systemic therapy has controlled metastatic disease, is recurrence in the chest.

We give adjuvant osimertinib. Please remember what the numbers are. In the osimertinib arm, of the 11 recurrences reported in the European Society for Medical Oncology presentation a few years back, nine of them were in the chest or mediastinal nodes. In the arm that got no osimertinib afterward, there were 46 recurrences, and 32 of those 46 recurrences were in the chest, either the lung or mediastinal nodes. Therefore, 74% of the recurrences are suddenly in the chest. What’s the issue here?

The issue is we need to find strategies to give better disease control in the chest, as we have made inroads in controlling systemic disease with the targeted therapies in the endothelial growth factor receptor space, and very likely the checkpoint inhibitors, too, as that data kind of filters out. We need to think about how better to get local control.

I think rather than continue to get into this argument of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant, we should move to what’s really hurting our patients. Again, the data I quoted you was from the ADAURA trial, which was adjuvant therapy, and I’m sure the neoadjuvant is going to show the same thing. It’s better systemic therapy but now, more trouble in the chest.

How are we going to deal with that? I’d like to throw out one strategy, and that is to rethink the role of radiation in these patients. Again, if the problem is local in the chest, lung, and lymph nodes, we have to think about local therapy. Yes, we’re not recommending it routinely for everybody, but now that we have better systemic control, we need to rethink our options. The obvious one to rethink is about giving radiotherapy.

We should also use what we learned in the earlier trials, which is that there is harm in giving excessive radiation to the heart. If you avoid the heart, you avoid the harm. We have better planning strategies for stereotactic body radiotherapy and more traditional radiation, and of course, we have proton therapy as well.

As we continue to struggle with the idea of that patient with stage II or III disease, whether to give adjuvant vs neoadjuvant therapy, please remember to consider their risk in 2024. Their risk for first recurrence is in the chest.

What are we going to do to better control disease in the chest? We have a challenge. I’m sure we can meet it if we put our heads together.

Dr. Kris is professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, and attending physician, Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Let’s go through them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Let’s go through them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Let’s go through them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, I concluded a commentary for this news organization on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by stating that between stool-based tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, “the best screening test is the test that gets done.” But should that maxim apply to the new blood-based screening test, Guardant Health Shield? This proprietary test, which costs $895 and is not generally covered by insurance, identifies alterations in cell-free DNA that are characteristic of CRC.

Shield’s test characteristics were recently evaluated in a prospective study of more than 10,000 adults aged 45-84 at average risk for CRC. The test had an 87.5% sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer but only a 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Test specificity was 89.6%, meaning that about 1 in 10 participants without CRC or advanced precancerous lesions on colonoscopy had a false-positive result.

Although the Shield blood test has a higher rate of false positives than the traditional fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lower sensitivity and specificity than a multitarget stool DNA (FIT-DNA) test designed to improve on Cologuard, it meets the previously established criteria set forth by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to be covered for Medicare beneficiaries at 3-year intervals, pending FDA approval. If public and private payers start covering Shield alongside other CRC screening tests, it presents an opportunity for primary care physicians to reach the approximately 3 in 10 adults between ages 45 and 75 who are not being routinely screened.

A big concern, however, is that the availability of a blood test may cause patients who would have otherwise been screened with colonoscopy or stool tests to switch to the blood test. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that offering a blood test to patients who decline screening colonoscopy saves additional lives, but at the cost of more than $377,000 per life-year gained. Another study relying on three microsimulation models previously utilized by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that annual FIT results in more life-years gained at substantially lower cost than blood-based screening every 3 years “even when uptake of blood-based screening was 20 percentage points higher than uptake of FIT.” As a result, a multidisciplinary expert panel concluded that blood-based screening should not substitute for established CRC screening tests, but instead be offered only to patients who decline those tests.

In practice, this will increase the complexity of the CRC screening conversations we have with patients. We will need to be clear that the blood test is not yet endorsed by the USPSTF or any major guideline group and is a second-line test that will miss most precancerous polyps. As with the stool tests, it is essential to emphasize that a positive result must be followed by diagnostic colonoscopy. To addend the cancer screening maxim I mentioned before, the blood test is not the best test for CRC, but it’s probably better than no test at all.

Dr. Lin is a family physician and associate director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He blogs at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

167822_golfphoto_web.jpg

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

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

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

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

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

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

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

167822_golfphoto_web.jpg

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

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

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

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

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

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

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

167822_golfphoto_web.jpg

Benabio_Jeff_SanDiego2017_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:265422]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

burnout_2_web.jpg

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:268356]

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

burnout_2_web.jpg

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:268356]

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In last month’s column, I discussed employees who are “clock watchers” and how to address this issue in your practice if it exists. Here’s another scenario you may encounter from the Office Politics Forum at the recent American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting:

A 40-year-old dermatologist has practiced in the same office since residency and is loved by patients and staff. He remained with the practice through its takeover by a local hospital three years previously. Recently, over a 3-month period, everyone in the office notices a change in this dermatologist’s behavior. He no longer appears happy, is argumentative with staff and patients alike, often dismisses patients’ concerns, and calls in sick during the practice’s busiest days.

It is not difficult to recognize these changes as hallmarks of burnout, which continues to be pervasive across all practice settings and specialties. According to the American Medical Association’s National Burnout Benchmarking report, over 50% of physicians report some characteristics of burnout, which include emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of decreased personal achievement.

burnout_2_web.jpg

Eastern _Joseph_S_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:268356]

Addressing physician burnout requires a systems-based approach that targets these root causes at all levels, from individual coping strategies to organizational and systemic changes in the healthcare industry. Here are some strategies that have worked for me and others:

Optimize Practice Efficiency: This is the consistent theme of this column over several decades: Streamline office processes to enhance the quality of care while reducing unnecessary workload. This can involve adopting efficient patient scheduling systems, improving clinic flow, and utilizing technology like patient portals judiciously to avoid increasing the task load without compensation.

Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a culture that values work-life balance. This can include flexible scheduling, respecting off-duty hours by limiting non-emergency work communications, and using your vacation time. Remember Eastern’s First Law: Your last words will NOT be, “I wish I had spent more time in the office.”

Implement Medical Scribes: I’ve written frequently about this, including a recent column on the new artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, such as DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, ScribeLink, and Amazon Web Services’ new HealthScribe product. Utilizing medical scribes to handle documentation can significantly reduce the administrative burden, allowing physicians to focus more on patient care rather than paperwork, potentially improving both physician and patient satisfaction. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Provide Professional Development Opportunities: Offer opportunities for professional growth and development. This can include attending conferences, participating in research, or providing time and resources for continuing education. Such opportunities can reinvigorate a physician’s passion for medicine and improve job satisfaction.

Foster a Supportive Work Environment: Create a supportive work culture where staff and physicians feel comfortable discussing challenges and seeking support. Regular meetings or check-ins can help identify early signs of burnout and address them proactively.

Evaluate and Adjust Workloads: Regularly assess physician workloads to ensure they are manageable. Adjusting patient loads, redistributing tasks among team members, or hiring additional staff can help prevent burnout.

Leadership Training and Support: Provide training for leaders within the practice on recognizing signs of burnout and effective management strategies. Supportive leadership is crucial in creating an environment where physicians feel valued and heard.

Peer Support and Mentorship Programs: Establish peer support or mentorship programs where physicians can share experiences, offer advice, and provide emotional support to each other.

Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Managers should regularly solicit feedback from physicians regarding their workload, job satisfaction, and suggestions for improvements. Actively work on implementing feasible changes to address concerns.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.