Perspectives

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.

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.

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.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

Block_Allan_M_AZ_web.JPG

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

Block_Allan_M_AZ_web.JPG

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

Block_Allan_M_AZ_web.JPG

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Welcome to another episode of Sex Matters. I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist based in the Washington, DC area, and I interview amazingly cool people doing research in sexual medicine.

I heard an incredible lecture while I was at the Mayo Clinic urology conference by Dr. Stacy Loeb, who is a wonderful researcher of all things prostate cancer and men’s health, who is now talking more plant-based diets. Her lecture was so good, I begged her to join me for this discussion.

Dr. Loeb, I would love for you to introduce yourself.

Stacy Loeb, MD: I’m Dr. Loeb. I’m a urologist at New York University in the Manhattan VA, and I recently became board certified in lifestyle medicine because it’s so important for sexual health and, really, everything that we do.

Dr. Rubin: You recently became very interested in studying plant-based diets. How did that start, and how has the research evolved over time?

Dr. Loeb: It’s really amazing. For one thing, more of our patients with prostate cancer die of heart disease than of prostate cancer. And erectile dysfunction is really an early warning sign of cardiovascular disease. We felt like it was incumbent upon us, even within urology and sexual medicine, to better understand the basis for lifestyle modification that can help with these issues. We started doing some research on it, looking at men who follow more plant-based diets, and we found that they have a lower risk for fatal prostate cancer and are less likely to have erectile dysfunction.

Dr. Rubin: Tell us more about what you found for erectile dysfunction. How much benefit do people get by switching to a plant-based diet?

Dr. Loeb: First we looked at erectile function in men without prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study, a very large cohort study out of Harvard University. We found that among omnivorous people, those who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food were less likely to have incident erectile dysfunction. Then, we published a new paper looking at patients with prostate cancer. These men have extra challenges for sexual function because in addition to the standard cardiovascular changes with aging, prostate cancer treatment can affect the nerves that are involved in erections. But amazingly, even in that population, we found that the men who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food had better scores for erectile function.

That was really good news, and it’s a win-win. There is no reason not to counsel our patients to eat more plant-based foods. Meat is not masculine. Meat is associated with a higher risk for erectile dysfunction and is considered carcinogenic. It’s just something that we should try to stay away from.

Dr. Rubin: How do you counsel patients who might not be ready to go fully plant-based? Is a little better than nothing? How do you even start these conversations with people? Do you have any tips for primary care doctors?

Dr. Loeb: Great question. A little bit is very much better than nothing. In fact, in the health professionals follow-up study, we actually looked at quintiles of people who ate the most meat and animal-based foods and the least plant-based foods all the way up to the most plant-based and the least animal-based diets. Along that spectrum, it really does make a big difference. Anywhere that patients can start from is definitely better than nothing.

Simple things such as Meatless Monday or choosing a few days that they will give up animal-based foods will help. For some people, trying new things is easier than cutting things out, for example, trying a milk substitute such as oat, almond, or soy milk instead of dairy milk. That could be a great first step, or trying some dishes that don’t include meat — maybe a tofu stir fry or a taco or burrito without the meat.

There are many great options out there. In terms of resources for doctors, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a great website. They have fact sheets for a lot of the common questions that people ask such as how can I get enough protein or calcium on a plant-based diet? This isn’t a problem at all. In fact, Novak Djokovic and many other elite athletes eat plant-based diets, and they get enough protein with a much higher requirement than most of us who are not elite athletes. These fact sheets explain which plant foods are the best

I also like Nutritionfacts.org. They also have all kinds of great videos and resources. Both of these websites have recipes that were created by doctors and nutritionists.

We can suggest that our patients work with a nutritionist or join a virtual program. For example, Plant Powered here in New York has virtual plant-based jumpstart programs. People around the country can get in on programs that have nutritionists and health coaches — for people who want a boost.

Dr. Rubin: The data are really compelling. When you were speaking, not a person in the room was interested in having a steak that night for dinner, even with a steakhouse in the hotel.

What do you say to men who have prostate cancer or suffer from erectile dysfunction? Do any data show that by going plant-based you may show improvements? We have recent studies that show that regular exercise might be as good as Viagra.

Dr. Loeb: It’s definitely not too late, even if you’ve already been diagnosed with these conditions. In my own practice, I have seen changes in patients. In fact, one of the case scenarios that I submitted for the lifestyle medicine boards was a patient who adopted a whole food, plant-based diet and no longer uses Viagra. This is definitely something that’s possible to do with intensive lifestyle modification.

Dr. Rubin: Maybe vegetables are the new sexual health aide. How can people find out more? I know you have a Sirius XM radio show.

Dr. Loeb: It’s the Men’s Health Show on Sirius XM channel 110. It’s on Wednesdays from 6:00 to 8:00 PM ET, or you can listen to it on demand anytime through the Sirius XM app.

Dr. Rubin: You have done an enormous amount of research in prostate cancer and sexual medicine. You are an all-star in the field. Thank you for sharing all of your knowledge about plant-based diets. You’ve given us all a lot to think about today.

Dr. Rubin has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Welcome to another episode of Sex Matters. I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist based in the Washington, DC area, and I interview amazingly cool people doing research in sexual medicine.

I heard an incredible lecture while I was at the Mayo Clinic urology conference by Dr. Stacy Loeb, who is a wonderful researcher of all things prostate cancer and men’s health, who is now talking more plant-based diets. Her lecture was so good, I begged her to join me for this discussion.

Dr. Loeb, I would love for you to introduce yourself.

Stacy Loeb, MD: I’m Dr. Loeb. I’m a urologist at New York University in the Manhattan VA, and I recently became board certified in lifestyle medicine because it’s so important for sexual health and, really, everything that we do.

Dr. Rubin: You recently became very interested in studying plant-based diets. How did that start, and how has the research evolved over time?

Dr. Loeb: It’s really amazing. For one thing, more of our patients with prostate cancer die of heart disease than of prostate cancer. And erectile dysfunction is really an early warning sign of cardiovascular disease. We felt like it was incumbent upon us, even within urology and sexual medicine, to better understand the basis for lifestyle modification that can help with these issues. We started doing some research on it, looking at men who follow more plant-based diets, and we found that they have a lower risk for fatal prostate cancer and are less likely to have erectile dysfunction.

Dr. Rubin: Tell us more about what you found for erectile dysfunction. How much benefit do people get by switching to a plant-based diet?

Dr. Loeb: First we looked at erectile function in men without prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study, a very large cohort study out of Harvard University. We found that among omnivorous people, those who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food were less likely to have incident erectile dysfunction. Then, we published a new paper looking at patients with prostate cancer. These men have extra challenges for sexual function because in addition to the standard cardiovascular changes with aging, prostate cancer treatment can affect the nerves that are involved in erections. But amazingly, even in that population, we found that the men who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food had better scores for erectile function.

That was really good news, and it’s a win-win. There is no reason not to counsel our patients to eat more plant-based foods. Meat is not masculine. Meat is associated with a higher risk for erectile dysfunction and is considered carcinogenic. It’s just something that we should try to stay away from.

Dr. Rubin: How do you counsel patients who might not be ready to go fully plant-based? Is a little better than nothing? How do you even start these conversations with people? Do you have any tips for primary care doctors?

Dr. Loeb: Great question. A little bit is very much better than nothing. In fact, in the health professionals follow-up study, we actually looked at quintiles of people who ate the most meat and animal-based foods and the least plant-based foods all the way up to the most plant-based and the least animal-based diets. Along that spectrum, it really does make a big difference. Anywhere that patients can start from is definitely better than nothing.

Simple things such as Meatless Monday or choosing a few days that they will give up animal-based foods will help. For some people, trying new things is easier than cutting things out, for example, trying a milk substitute such as oat, almond, or soy milk instead of dairy milk. That could be a great first step, or trying some dishes that don’t include meat — maybe a tofu stir fry or a taco or burrito without the meat.

There are many great options out there. In terms of resources for doctors, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a great website. They have fact sheets for a lot of the common questions that people ask such as how can I get enough protein or calcium on a plant-based diet? This isn’t a problem at all. In fact, Novak Djokovic and many other elite athletes eat plant-based diets, and they get enough protein with a much higher requirement than most of us who are not elite athletes. These fact sheets explain which plant foods are the best

I also like Nutritionfacts.org. They also have all kinds of great videos and resources. Both of these websites have recipes that were created by doctors and nutritionists.

We can suggest that our patients work with a nutritionist or join a virtual program. For example, Plant Powered here in New York has virtual plant-based jumpstart programs. People around the country can get in on programs that have nutritionists and health coaches — for people who want a boost.

Dr. Rubin: The data are really compelling. When you were speaking, not a person in the room was interested in having a steak that night for dinner, even with a steakhouse in the hotel.

What do you say to men who have prostate cancer or suffer from erectile dysfunction? Do any data show that by going plant-based you may show improvements? We have recent studies that show that regular exercise might be as good as Viagra.

Dr. Loeb: It’s definitely not too late, even if you’ve already been diagnosed with these conditions. In my own practice, I have seen changes in patients. In fact, one of the case scenarios that I submitted for the lifestyle medicine boards was a patient who adopted a whole food, plant-based diet and no longer uses Viagra. This is definitely something that’s possible to do with intensive lifestyle modification.

Dr. Rubin: Maybe vegetables are the new sexual health aide. How can people find out more? I know you have a Sirius XM radio show.

Dr. Loeb: It’s the Men’s Health Show on Sirius XM channel 110. It’s on Wednesdays from 6:00 to 8:00 PM ET, or you can listen to it on demand anytime through the Sirius XM app.

Dr. Rubin: You have done an enormous amount of research in prostate cancer and sexual medicine. You are an all-star in the field. Thank you for sharing all of your knowledge about plant-based diets. You’ve given us all a lot to think about today.

Dr. Rubin has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Welcome to another episode of Sex Matters. I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist based in the Washington, DC area, and I interview amazingly cool people doing research in sexual medicine.

I heard an incredible lecture while I was at the Mayo Clinic urology conference by Dr. Stacy Loeb, who is a wonderful researcher of all things prostate cancer and men’s health, who is now talking more plant-based diets. Her lecture was so good, I begged her to join me for this discussion.

Dr. Loeb, I would love for you to introduce yourself.

Stacy Loeb, MD: I’m Dr. Loeb. I’m a urologist at New York University in the Manhattan VA, and I recently became board certified in lifestyle medicine because it’s so important for sexual health and, really, everything that we do.

Dr. Rubin: You recently became very interested in studying plant-based diets. How did that start, and how has the research evolved over time?

Dr. Loeb: It’s really amazing. For one thing, more of our patients with prostate cancer die of heart disease than of prostate cancer. And erectile dysfunction is really an early warning sign of cardiovascular disease. We felt like it was incumbent upon us, even within urology and sexual medicine, to better understand the basis for lifestyle modification that can help with these issues. We started doing some research on it, looking at men who follow more plant-based diets, and we found that they have a lower risk for fatal prostate cancer and are less likely to have erectile dysfunction.

Dr. Rubin: Tell us more about what you found for erectile dysfunction. How much benefit do people get by switching to a plant-based diet?

Dr. Loeb: First we looked at erectile function in men without prostate cancer in the health professionals follow-up study, a very large cohort study out of Harvard University. We found that among omnivorous people, those who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food were less likely to have incident erectile dysfunction. Then, we published a new paper looking at patients with prostate cancer. These men have extra challenges for sexual function because in addition to the standard cardiovascular changes with aging, prostate cancer treatment can affect the nerves that are involved in erections. But amazingly, even in that population, we found that the men who ate more plant-based and less animal-based food had better scores for erectile function.

That was really good news, and it’s a win-win. There is no reason not to counsel our patients to eat more plant-based foods. Meat is not masculine. Meat is associated with a higher risk for erectile dysfunction and is considered carcinogenic. It’s just something that we should try to stay away from.

Dr. Rubin: How do you counsel patients who might not be ready to go fully plant-based? Is a little better than nothing? How do you even start these conversations with people? Do you have any tips for primary care doctors?

Dr. Loeb: Great question. A little bit is very much better than nothing. In fact, in the health professionals follow-up study, we actually looked at quintiles of people who ate the most meat and animal-based foods and the least plant-based foods all the way up to the most plant-based and the least animal-based diets. Along that spectrum, it really does make a big difference. Anywhere that patients can start from is definitely better than nothing.

Simple things such as Meatless Monday or choosing a few days that they will give up animal-based foods will help. For some people, trying new things is easier than cutting things out, for example, trying a milk substitute such as oat, almond, or soy milk instead of dairy milk. That could be a great first step, or trying some dishes that don’t include meat — maybe a tofu stir fry or a taco or burrito without the meat.

There are many great options out there. In terms of resources for doctors, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a great website. They have fact sheets for a lot of the common questions that people ask such as how can I get enough protein or calcium on a plant-based diet? This isn’t a problem at all. In fact, Novak Djokovic and many other elite athletes eat plant-based diets, and they get enough protein with a much higher requirement than most of us who are not elite athletes. These fact sheets explain which plant foods are the best

I also like Nutritionfacts.org. They also have all kinds of great videos and resources. Both of these websites have recipes that were created by doctors and nutritionists.

We can suggest that our patients work with a nutritionist or join a virtual program. For example, Plant Powered here in New York has virtual plant-based jumpstart programs. People around the country can get in on programs that have nutritionists and health coaches — for people who want a boost.

Dr. Rubin: The data are really compelling. When you were speaking, not a person in the room was interested in having a steak that night for dinner, even with a steakhouse in the hotel.

What do you say to men who have prostate cancer or suffer from erectile dysfunction? Do any data show that by going plant-based you may show improvements? We have recent studies that show that regular exercise might be as good as Viagra.

Dr. Loeb: It’s definitely not too late, even if you’ve already been diagnosed with these conditions. In my own practice, I have seen changes in patients. In fact, one of the case scenarios that I submitted for the lifestyle medicine boards was a patient who adopted a whole food, plant-based diet and no longer uses Viagra. This is definitely something that’s possible to do with intensive lifestyle modification.

Dr. Rubin: Maybe vegetables are the new sexual health aide. How can people find out more? I know you have a Sirius XM radio show.

Dr. Loeb: It’s the Men’s Health Show on Sirius XM channel 110. It’s on Wednesdays from 6:00 to 8:00 PM ET, or you can listen to it on demand anytime through the Sirius XM app.

Dr. Rubin: You have done an enormous amount of research in prostate cancer and sexual medicine. You are an all-star in the field. Thank you for sharing all of your knowledge about plant-based diets. You’ve given us all a lot to think about today.

Dr. Rubin has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series by this news organization that tells these stories.

It was my first night off after 12 days. It was a Friday night, and I went to a bar in Naples to get a beer with some friends. As it turned out, it wasn’t a night off after all.

As soon as we got inside, we heard over the speaker that they needed medical personnel and to please go to the left side of the bar. I thought it would be syncope or something like that.

I went over there and saw a woman holding up a man. He was basically leaning all over her. The light was low, and the music was pounding. I started to assess him and tried to get him to answer me. No response. I checked for pulses — nothing.

Now, I’m in a bar, right? It’s a cardiac arrest. The first thing you think is overdose or alcohol. I asked the woman if the man was doing any drugs. She said she didn’t know. Turns out they were both employees. He was a bouncer and a DJ.

The woman helped me lower him to the floor. I checked again for a pulse. Still nothing. I said, “Call 911,” and started compressions.

The difficult part was the place was completely dark. I knew where his body was on the floor. I could see his chest. But I couldn’t see his face at all.

It was also extremely loud with the music thumping. After a while, they finally shut it off.

Pretty soon, the security personnel from the bar brought me an automated external defibrillator, and it showed the man was having V-fib arrest. I shocked him. Still no pulse. I continued with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

I hadn’t noticed, but lots of people were crowding around us. Somebody came up and said, “He’s my friend. He has a 9-year-old daughter. He can’t die. Let me help with the compressions.” I was like, “Go for it.”

The guy started kind of pushing on the man’s abdomen. He had no idea how to do compressions. I said, “Okay, let me take over again.”

Out of the crowd, nobody else volunteered to help. No one asked me, “Hey, what can I do?” Meanwhile, I found out later that someone was filming the whole thing on their phone.

But what the guy said about the man’s young daughter stayed in my brain. I thought, we need to keep going.

I did more compressions and shocked him again. Still no pulse. At that point, the police and emergency medical services showed up. They checked, nothing had changed, so they got him into the ambulance.

I asked one of the paramedics, “Where are you taking him? I can call ahead.”

But he said, “That’s HIPAA. We can’t tell you.” They also wouldn’t let me go with him in the ambulance.

“I have an active Florida license, and I work in the ICU [intensive care unit],” I said.

“No, we need to follow our protocol,” he replied.

I understood that, but I just wanted to help.

It was around 10:30 PM by then, and I was drenched in sweat. I had to go home. The first thing I did after taking a shower was open the computer and check my system. I needed to find out what happened to the guy.

I was looking for admissions, and I didn’t see him. I called the main hospital downtown and the one in North Naples. I couldn’t find him anywhere. I stayed up until almost 1:00 AM checking for his name. At that point I thought, okay, maybe he died.

The next night, Saturday, I was home and got a call from one of my colleagues. “Hey, were you in a bar yesterday? Did you do CPR on somebody?”

“How did you know?” I said.

He said the paramedics had described me — “a tall doctor with glasses who was a nice guy.” It was funny that he knew that was me.

He told me, “The guy’s alive. He’s sick and needs to be put on dialysis, but he’s alive.”

Apparently, the guy had gone to the emergency department at North Naples, and the doctors in the emergency room (ER) worked on him for over an hour. They did continuous CPR and shocked him for close to 40 minutes. They finally got his pulse back, and after that, he was transferred to the main hospital ICU. They didn’t admit him at the ER, which was why I couldn’t find his name.

On Sunday, I was checking my patients’ charts for the ICU that coming week. And there he was. I saw his name and the documentation by the ED that CPR was provided by a critical care doctor in the field. He was still alive. That gave me so much joy.

So, the man I had helped became my patient. When I saw him on Monday, he was intubated and needed dialysis. I finally saw his face and thought, Oh, so that’s what you look like. I hadn’t realized he was only 39 years old.

When he was awake, I explained to him I was the doctor that provided CPR at the bar. He was very grateful, but of course, he didn’t remember anything.

Eventually, I met his daughter, and she just said, “Thank you for allowing me to have my dad.”

The funny part is that he broke his leg. Well, that’s not funny, but no one had any idea how it happened. That was his only complaint. He was asking me, “Doctor, how did you break my leg?”

“Hey, I have no idea how you broke your leg,” I replied. “I was trying to save your life.”

He was in the hospital for almost a month but made a full recovery. The amazing part: After all the evaluations, he has no neurological deficits. He’s back to a normal life now.

They never found a cause for the cardiac arrest. I mean, he had an ejection fraction of 10%. All my money was on something drug related, but that wasn’t the case. They’d done a cardiac cut, and there was no obstruction. They couldn’t find a reason.

We’ve become friends. He still works as a DJ at the bar. He changed his name to “DJ the Survivor” or something like that.

Sometimes, he’ll text me: “Doctor, what are you doing? You want to come down to the bar?”

I’m like, “No. I don’t.”

It’s been more than a year, but I remember every detail. When you go into medicine, you dream that one day you’ll be able to say, “I saved somebody.”

He texted me a year later and told me he’s celebrating two birthdays now. He said, “I’m turning 1 year old today!”

I think about the value of life. How we can take it for granted. We think, I’m young, nothing is going to happen to me. But this guy was 39. He went to work and died that night.

I was able to help bring him back. That makes me thankful for every day.

Jose Valle Giler, MD, is a pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine physician at NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series by this news organization that tells these stories.

It was my first night off after 12 days. It was a Friday night, and I went to a bar in Naples to get a beer with some friends. As it turned out, it wasn’t a night off after all.

As soon as we got inside, we heard over the speaker that they needed medical personnel and to please go to the left side of the bar. I thought it would be syncope or something like that.

I went over there and saw a woman holding up a man. He was basically leaning all over her. The light was low, and the music was pounding. I started to assess him and tried to get him to answer me. No response. I checked for pulses — nothing.

Now, I’m in a bar, right? It’s a cardiac arrest. The first thing you think is overdose or alcohol. I asked the woman if the man was doing any drugs. She said she didn’t know. Turns out they were both employees. He was a bouncer and a DJ.

The woman helped me lower him to the floor. I checked again for a pulse. Still nothing. I said, “Call 911,” and started compressions.

The difficult part was the place was completely dark. I knew where his body was on the floor. I could see his chest. But I couldn’t see his face at all.

It was also extremely loud with the music thumping. After a while, they finally shut it off.

Pretty soon, the security personnel from the bar brought me an automated external defibrillator, and it showed the man was having V-fib arrest. I shocked him. Still no pulse. I continued with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

I hadn’t noticed, but lots of people were crowding around us. Somebody came up and said, “He’s my friend. He has a 9-year-old daughter. He can’t die. Let me help with the compressions.” I was like, “Go for it.”

The guy started kind of pushing on the man’s abdomen. He had no idea how to do compressions. I said, “Okay, let me take over again.”

Out of the crowd, nobody else volunteered to help. No one asked me, “Hey, what can I do?” Meanwhile, I found out later that someone was filming the whole thing on their phone.

But what the guy said about the man’s young daughter stayed in my brain. I thought, we need to keep going.

I did more compressions and shocked him again. Still no pulse. At that point, the police and emergency medical services showed up. They checked, nothing had changed, so they got him into the ambulance.

I asked one of the paramedics, “Where are you taking him? I can call ahead.”

But he said, “That’s HIPAA. We can’t tell you.” They also wouldn’t let me go with him in the ambulance.

“I have an active Florida license, and I work in the ICU [intensive care unit],” I said.

“No, we need to follow our protocol,” he replied.

I understood that, but I just wanted to help.

It was around 10:30 PM by then, and I was drenched in sweat. I had to go home. The first thing I did after taking a shower was open the computer and check my system. I needed to find out what happened to the guy.

I was looking for admissions, and I didn’t see him. I called the main hospital downtown and the one in North Naples. I couldn’t find him anywhere. I stayed up until almost 1:00 AM checking for his name. At that point I thought, okay, maybe he died.

The next night, Saturday, I was home and got a call from one of my colleagues. “Hey, were you in a bar yesterday? Did you do CPR on somebody?”

“How did you know?” I said.

He said the paramedics had described me — “a tall doctor with glasses who was a nice guy.” It was funny that he knew that was me.

He told me, “The guy’s alive. He’s sick and needs to be put on dialysis, but he’s alive.”

Apparently, the guy had gone to the emergency department at North Naples, and the doctors in the emergency room (ER) worked on him for over an hour. They did continuous CPR and shocked him for close to 40 minutes. They finally got his pulse back, and after that, he was transferred to the main hospital ICU. They didn’t admit him at the ER, which was why I couldn’t find his name.

On Sunday, I was checking my patients’ charts for the ICU that coming week. And there he was. I saw his name and the documentation by the ED that CPR was provided by a critical care doctor in the field. He was still alive. That gave me so much joy.

So, the man I had helped became my patient. When I saw him on Monday, he was intubated and needed dialysis. I finally saw his face and thought, Oh, so that’s what you look like. I hadn’t realized he was only 39 years old.

When he was awake, I explained to him I was the doctor that provided CPR at the bar. He was very grateful, but of course, he didn’t remember anything.

Eventually, I met his daughter, and she just said, “Thank you for allowing me to have my dad.”

The funny part is that he broke his leg. Well, that’s not funny, but no one had any idea how it happened. That was his only complaint. He was asking me, “Doctor, how did you break my leg?”

“Hey, I have no idea how you broke your leg,” I replied. “I was trying to save your life.”

He was in the hospital for almost a month but made a full recovery. The amazing part: After all the evaluations, he has no neurological deficits. He’s back to a normal life now.

They never found a cause for the cardiac arrest. I mean, he had an ejection fraction of 10%. All my money was on something drug related, but that wasn’t the case. They’d done a cardiac cut, and there was no obstruction. They couldn’t find a reason.

We’ve become friends. He still works as a DJ at the bar. He changed his name to “DJ the Survivor” or something like that.

Sometimes, he’ll text me: “Doctor, what are you doing? You want to come down to the bar?”

I’m like, “No. I don’t.”

It’s been more than a year, but I remember every detail. When you go into medicine, you dream that one day you’ll be able to say, “I saved somebody.”

He texted me a year later and told me he’s celebrating two birthdays now. He said, “I’m turning 1 year old today!”

I think about the value of life. How we can take it for granted. We think, I’m young, nothing is going to happen to me. But this guy was 39. He went to work and died that night.

I was able to help bring him back. That makes me thankful for every day.

Jose Valle Giler, MD, is a pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine physician at NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series by this news organization that tells these stories.

It was my first night off after 12 days. It was a Friday night, and I went to a bar in Naples to get a beer with some friends. As it turned out, it wasn’t a night off after all.

As soon as we got inside, we heard over the speaker that they needed medical personnel and to please go to the left side of the bar. I thought it would be syncope or something like that.

I went over there and saw a woman holding up a man. He was basically leaning all over her. The light was low, and the music was pounding. I started to assess him and tried to get him to answer me. No response. I checked for pulses — nothing.

Now, I’m in a bar, right? It’s a cardiac arrest. The first thing you think is overdose or alcohol. I asked the woman if the man was doing any drugs. She said she didn’t know. Turns out they were both employees. He was a bouncer and a DJ.

The woman helped me lower him to the floor. I checked again for a pulse. Still nothing. I said, “Call 911,” and started compressions.

The difficult part was the place was completely dark. I knew where his body was on the floor. I could see his chest. But I couldn’t see his face at all.

It was also extremely loud with the music thumping. After a while, they finally shut it off.

Pretty soon, the security personnel from the bar brought me an automated external defibrillator, and it showed the man was having V-fib arrest. I shocked him. Still no pulse. I continued with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

I hadn’t noticed, but lots of people were crowding around us. Somebody came up and said, “He’s my friend. He has a 9-year-old daughter. He can’t die. Let me help with the compressions.” I was like, “Go for it.”

The guy started kind of pushing on the man’s abdomen. He had no idea how to do compressions. I said, “Okay, let me take over again.”

Out of the crowd, nobody else volunteered to help. No one asked me, “Hey, what can I do?” Meanwhile, I found out later that someone was filming the whole thing on their phone.

But what the guy said about the man’s young daughter stayed in my brain. I thought, we need to keep going.

I did more compressions and shocked him again. Still no pulse. At that point, the police and emergency medical services showed up. They checked, nothing had changed, so they got him into the ambulance.

I asked one of the paramedics, “Where are you taking him? I can call ahead.”

But he said, “That’s HIPAA. We can’t tell you.” They also wouldn’t let me go with him in the ambulance.

“I have an active Florida license, and I work in the ICU [intensive care unit],” I said.

“No, we need to follow our protocol,” he replied.

I understood that, but I just wanted to help.

It was around 10:30 PM by then, and I was drenched in sweat. I had to go home. The first thing I did after taking a shower was open the computer and check my system. I needed to find out what happened to the guy.

I was looking for admissions, and I didn’t see him. I called the main hospital downtown and the one in North Naples. I couldn’t find him anywhere. I stayed up until almost 1:00 AM checking for his name. At that point I thought, okay, maybe he died.

The next night, Saturday, I was home and got a call from one of my colleagues. “Hey, were you in a bar yesterday? Did you do CPR on somebody?”

“How did you know?” I said.

He said the paramedics had described me — “a tall doctor with glasses who was a nice guy.” It was funny that he knew that was me.

He told me, “The guy’s alive. He’s sick and needs to be put on dialysis, but he’s alive.”

Apparently, the guy had gone to the emergency department at North Naples, and the doctors in the emergency room (ER) worked on him for over an hour. They did continuous CPR and shocked him for close to 40 minutes. They finally got his pulse back, and after that, he was transferred to the main hospital ICU. They didn’t admit him at the ER, which was why I couldn’t find his name.

On Sunday, I was checking my patients’ charts for the ICU that coming week. And there he was. I saw his name and the documentation by the ED that CPR was provided by a critical care doctor in the field. He was still alive. That gave me so much joy.

So, the man I had helped became my patient. When I saw him on Monday, he was intubated and needed dialysis. I finally saw his face and thought, Oh, so that’s what you look like. I hadn’t realized he was only 39 years old.

When he was awake, I explained to him I was the doctor that provided CPR at the bar. He was very grateful, but of course, he didn’t remember anything.

Eventually, I met his daughter, and she just said, “Thank you for allowing me to have my dad.”

The funny part is that he broke his leg. Well, that’s not funny, but no one had any idea how it happened. That was his only complaint. He was asking me, “Doctor, how did you break my leg?”

“Hey, I have no idea how you broke your leg,” I replied. “I was trying to save your life.”

He was in the hospital for almost a month but made a full recovery. The amazing part: After all the evaluations, he has no neurological deficits. He’s back to a normal life now.

They never found a cause for the cardiac arrest. I mean, he had an ejection fraction of 10%. All my money was on something drug related, but that wasn’t the case. They’d done a cardiac cut, and there was no obstruction. They couldn’t find a reason.

We’ve become friends. He still works as a DJ at the bar. He changed his name to “DJ the Survivor” or something like that.

Sometimes, he’ll text me: “Doctor, what are you doing? You want to come down to the bar?”

I’m like, “No. I don’t.”

It’s been more than a year, but I remember every detail. When you go into medicine, you dream that one day you’ll be able to say, “I saved somebody.”

He texted me a year later and told me he’s celebrating two birthdays now. He said, “I’m turning 1 year old today!”

I think about the value of life. How we can take it for granted. We think, I’m young, nothing is going to happen to me. But this guy was 39. He went to work and died that night.

I was able to help bring him back. That makes me thankful for every day.

Jose Valle Giler, MD, is a pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine physician at NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .