Clinical Endocrinology News

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Diabetes and prediabetes are associated with accelerated brain aging with brain age gaps of 2.29 and 0.50 years, respectively. This association is more pronounced in men and those with poor cardiometabolic health but may be mitigated by a healthy lifestyle.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes is a known risk factor for cognitive impairment, dementia, and global brain atrophy but conflicting results have been reported for prediabetes, and it’s unknown whether a healthy lifestyle can counteract the negative impact of prediabetes.
• Researchers examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between hyperglycemia and brain aging, as well as the potential mitigating effect of a healthy lifestyle in 31,229 dementia-free adults (mean age, 54.8 years; 53% women) from the UK Biobank, including 13,518 participants with prediabetes and 1149 with diabetes.
• The glycemic status of the participants was determined by their medical history, medication use, and A1c levels.
• The brain age gap was calculated as a difference between chronologic age and brain age estimated from MRI data from six modalities vs several hundred brain MRI phenotypes that were modeled from a subset of healthy individuals.
• The role of sex, cardiometabolic risk factors, and a healthy lifestyle and their association with brain age was also explored, with a healthy lifestyle defined as never smoking, no or light or moderate alcohol consumption, and high physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Prediabetes and diabetes were associated with a higher brain age gap than normoglycemia (beta-coefficient, 0.22 and 2.01; 95% CI, 0.10-0.34 and 1.70-2.32, respectively), and diabetes was more pronounced in men vs women and those with a higher vs lower burden of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• The brain ages of those with prediabetes and diabetes were 0.50 years and 2.29 years older on average than their respective chronologic ages.
• In an exploratory longitudinal analysis of the 2414 participants with two brain MRI scans, diabetes was linked to a 0.27-year annual increase in the brain age gap, and higher A1c, but not prediabetes, was associated with a significant increase in brain age gap.
• A healthy lifestyle attenuated the association between diabetes and a higher brain age gap (P = .003), reducing it by 1.68 years, also with a significant interaction between glycemic status and lifestyle.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight diabetes and prediabetes as ideal targets for lifestyle-based interventions to promote brain health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Abigail Dove, Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the findings was limited due to a healthy volunteer bias in the UK Biobank. A high proportion of missing data prevented the inclusion of diet in the healthy lifestyle construct. Reverse causality may be possible as an older brain may contribute to the development of prediabetes by making it more difficult to manage medical conditions and adhere to a healthy lifestyle. A1c levels were measured only at baseline, preventing the assessment of changes in glycemic control over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported receiving funding from the Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare; Karolinska Institutet Board of Research; Riksbankens Jubileumsfond; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation; Alzheimerfonden; and Demensfonden. They declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Diabetes and prediabetes are associated with accelerated brain aging with brain age gaps of 2.29 and 0.50 years, respectively. This association is more pronounced in men and those with poor cardiometabolic health but may be mitigated by a healthy lifestyle.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes is a known risk factor for cognitive impairment, dementia, and global brain atrophy but conflicting results have been reported for prediabetes, and it’s unknown whether a healthy lifestyle can counteract the negative impact of prediabetes.
• Researchers examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between hyperglycemia and brain aging, as well as the potential mitigating effect of a healthy lifestyle in 31,229 dementia-free adults (mean age, 54.8 years; 53% women) from the UK Biobank, including 13,518 participants with prediabetes and 1149 with diabetes.
• The glycemic status of the participants was determined by their medical history, medication use, and A1c levels.
• The brain age gap was calculated as a difference between chronologic age and brain age estimated from MRI data from six modalities vs several hundred brain MRI phenotypes that were modeled from a subset of healthy individuals.
• The role of sex, cardiometabolic risk factors, and a healthy lifestyle and their association with brain age was also explored, with a healthy lifestyle defined as never smoking, no or light or moderate alcohol consumption, and high physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Prediabetes and diabetes were associated with a higher brain age gap than normoglycemia (beta-coefficient, 0.22 and 2.01; 95% CI, 0.10-0.34 and 1.70-2.32, respectively), and diabetes was more pronounced in men vs women and those with a higher vs lower burden of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• The brain ages of those with prediabetes and diabetes were 0.50 years and 2.29 years older on average than their respective chronologic ages.
• In an exploratory longitudinal analysis of the 2414 participants with two brain MRI scans, diabetes was linked to a 0.27-year annual increase in the brain age gap, and higher A1c, but not prediabetes, was associated with a significant increase in brain age gap.
• A healthy lifestyle attenuated the association between diabetes and a higher brain age gap (P = .003), reducing it by 1.68 years, also with a significant interaction between glycemic status and lifestyle.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight diabetes and prediabetes as ideal targets for lifestyle-based interventions to promote brain health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Abigail Dove, Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the findings was limited due to a healthy volunteer bias in the UK Biobank. A high proportion of missing data prevented the inclusion of diet in the healthy lifestyle construct. Reverse causality may be possible as an older brain may contribute to the development of prediabetes by making it more difficult to manage medical conditions and adhere to a healthy lifestyle. A1c levels were measured only at baseline, preventing the assessment of changes in glycemic control over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported receiving funding from the Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare; Karolinska Institutet Board of Research; Riksbankens Jubileumsfond; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation; Alzheimerfonden; and Demensfonden. They declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Diabetes and prediabetes are associated with accelerated brain aging with brain age gaps of 2.29 and 0.50 years, respectively. This association is more pronounced in men and those with poor cardiometabolic health but may be mitigated by a healthy lifestyle.

METHODOLOGY:

• Diabetes is a known risk factor for cognitive impairment, dementia, and global brain atrophy but conflicting results have been reported for prediabetes, and it’s unknown whether a healthy lifestyle can counteract the negative impact of prediabetes.
• Researchers examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between hyperglycemia and brain aging, as well as the potential mitigating effect of a healthy lifestyle in 31,229 dementia-free adults (mean age, 54.8 years; 53% women) from the UK Biobank, including 13,518 participants with prediabetes and 1149 with diabetes.
• The glycemic status of the participants was determined by their medical history, medication use, and A1c levels.
• The brain age gap was calculated as a difference between chronologic age and brain age estimated from MRI data from six modalities vs several hundred brain MRI phenotypes that were modeled from a subset of healthy individuals.
• The role of sex, cardiometabolic risk factors, and a healthy lifestyle and their association with brain age was also explored, with a healthy lifestyle defined as never smoking, no or light or moderate alcohol consumption, and high physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Prediabetes and diabetes were associated with a higher brain age gap than normoglycemia (beta-coefficient, 0.22 and 2.01; 95% CI, 0.10-0.34 and 1.70-2.32, respectively), and diabetes was more pronounced in men vs women and those with a higher vs lower burden of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• The brain ages of those with prediabetes and diabetes were 0.50 years and 2.29 years older on average than their respective chronologic ages.
• In an exploratory longitudinal analysis of the 2414 participants with two brain MRI scans, diabetes was linked to a 0.27-year annual increase in the brain age gap, and higher A1c, but not prediabetes, was associated with a significant increase in brain age gap.
• A healthy lifestyle attenuated the association between diabetes and a higher brain age gap (P = .003), reducing it by 1.68 years, also with a significant interaction between glycemic status and lifestyle.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight diabetes and prediabetes as ideal targets for lifestyle-based interventions to promote brain health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Abigail Dove, Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The generalizability of the findings was limited due to a healthy volunteer bias in the UK Biobank. A high proportion of missing data prevented the inclusion of diet in the healthy lifestyle construct. Reverse causality may be possible as an older brain may contribute to the development of prediabetes by making it more difficult to manage medical conditions and adhere to a healthy lifestyle. A1c levels were measured only at baseline, preventing the assessment of changes in glycemic control over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported receiving funding from the Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare; Karolinska Institutet Board of Research; Riksbankens Jubileumsfond; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation; Alzheimerfonden; and Demensfonden. They declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher body mass index (BMI) in both partners is linked to lower fecundability and increased subfertility. Overweight and obesity in women are associated with higher odds of miscarriage.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based prospective cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, from August 9, 2017, to July 1, 2021.
• A total of 3604 women and their partners were included, with follow-up until birth.
• BMI was measured in preconception or early pregnancy, and outcomes included fecundability, subfertility, and miscarriage.
• Fecundability was defined as the probability of conceiving within 1 month and subfertility as time to pregnancy or duration of actively pursuing pregnancy of more than 12 months or use of assisted reproductive technology.
• Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 22 weeks of gestation.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher BMI in women and men was associated with lower fecundability: For every unit increase in BMI, fecundability decreased (women, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; men, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00).
• Women with overweight (0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and obesity (0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) had lower fecundability than women with normal weight.
• Overweight (1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63) and obesity (1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.13) in women were associated with increased odds of subfertility.
• Obesity in men was associated with increased odds of subfertility (1.69; 95% CI, 1.24-2.31).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed in this cohort study that BMI outside of the normal category in women and men was associated with lower fecundability, subfertility, and increased odds of miscarriage. Optimizing BMI from the preconception period onward in women and men might be an important strategy to improve fertility and pregnancy outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aline J. Boxem, MD, and Vincent W. V. Jaddoe, MD, PhD, The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability may be affected by differences between included and excluded participants, who were younger and had a higher BMI. The accuracy of time-to-pregnancy duration may have been impacted by retrospectively answered questionnaires. Residual confounding might still be an issue due to the observational nature of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Boxem and Dr. Jaddoe disclosed receiving grants from the Erasmus University Medical Centre, the Erasmus University Rotterdam, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

There’s an unexpected treatment for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms that’s getting more popular: clinical hypnosis. 

Hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention that works through disassociating, or putting aside your conscious awareness of things that would ordinarily be in your consciousness, said David Spiegel, MD, a psychiatrist with Stanford Medical School in Califonrnia. 

“It increases your cognitive flexibility – a way to approach an old problem from a new point of view and just let go of your older ways of thinking about it,” he said. 

Usually around age 50, women have menopause, which is the end of their menstrual cycles. Estrogen levels drop, and hot flashes can happen 12-15 times per day, said Gary Elkins, PhD, a psychology and neuroscience professor at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Both clinical hypnosis and cognitive-behavioral therapy, a common form of talk therapy, have been shown to work as non-hormonal treatments for hot flashes, particularly for women who are unable to take hormones for health reasons, such as having a history with an estrogen-sensitive cancer (like breast cancer), according to research published by the Menopause Society in 2023. 

A new review presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Menopause Society in Chicago analyzed 23 studies from 1996 to 2022 and compared how well clinical hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy worked as treatments for hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Researchers found that clinical hypnosis is better at helping make hot flashes less frequent and less intense, even reducing symptoms by 60%. Findings on cognitive-behavioral therapy, on the other hand, showed only slight hot flash reduction, though it helped reduce daily stress linked with hot flashes. 

Hypnosis can address the “perfect storm” of mental and physical issues that come with menopause symptoms, explained Dr. Spiegel, who created a popular self-hypnosis app called Reveri. “You’re having a reduction in your levels of estrogen and progesterone, but it’s also a reminder that you’re going into a different stage of life where you’re no longer fertile, you’re getting older,” he said. “[With hypnosis], you can disassociate pain and your awareness of things that ordinarily would impede your consciousness and make you miserable.”

A hypnosis session can help you separate psychological discomfort from physical discomfort, Dr. Spiegel said. “Typically, people in hypnosis dealing with menopause will imagine they’re floating in a lake, feeling cool, tingling, numbness. They can literally change how hot they feel. They can change the hot flash and imagine themselves cool, comfortable. If they’re worried about something, picture it on an imaginary screen. Just picture it, but not feel it.”
 

Hypnosis for Sleep

Hot flashes that happen at night are called night sweats and can hinder your sleep. Hypnotherapy can help reduce both hot flashes and night sweats, to the point where sleep is not interrupted, Dr. Elkins said. “While sleep improves with the hypnotherapy intervention, it also involves general relaxation,” said Dr. Elkins, who is the director of the Mind-Body Medicine Research Laboratory at Baylor University. “As women practice self-hypnosis at night, they’re entering a more calm and relaxed state, which also may facilitate good sleep or improve sleep duration and sleep quality.”

Our subconscious mind influences our sleep patterns largely through experiences vs. words or thoughts, according to Emilie Leyes, a certified hypnotherapist based in Philadelphia. This explains why simply reciting the words “I’m relaxed,” when you’re stressed, is often less effective than a few deep breaths or a warm hug from a family member or friend, said Ms. Leyes, who hosts a brain-training podcast for mindset transformation called How to Like Your Life.

“In a similar way, hypnosis, which directly accesses the subconscious, allows us to offer our minds new, powerful experiences to reduce our stress, improve our mood, and increase our access to positive emotions,” she said. “Repeatedly exposing ourselves to these positive experiences in our minds can increase our capacity to feel good, and impact how we feel in our everyday lives.”
 

Your First Hypnosis Session

A hypnosis session always begins with deep relaxation, which can help your mind and body grow accustomed to what it’s like to feel calm, said Ms. Leyes. “By giving the brain and body experiences of safety, relaxation, and inner peace, we can more easily let go of our stressful thoughts of the day and drift off to sleep with ease at night.”

You will often start by sitting or lying in a comfortable position, and then the hypnotic induction begins with a focus of attention, according to Dr. Elkins. The person concentrates, with their eyelids closed, and then are given suggestions for deepening their relaxed state. “Usually that’s a safe, pleasant place, such as walking through the mountains or being near a beach,” he said. “And within that, suggestions are given that target the mechanism that underlies the symptoms [such as hot flashes].”

Dr. Spiegel usually starts off with a neutral test that can help measure how hypnotizable a person is on a 0-to-10 scale. For example, instructing the client to imagine that their hand is floating in the air. If they pull their hand down and it floats back up, the client finds they can “actually dissociate the psychological from the physiological aspects of their experience – their left hand feels different from their right hand,” Dr. Spiegel said. “I use that as an example for them to say, ‘look how you can change how your body feels. Now, let’s use it to help you with your anxiety with your menopausal symptoms.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) reduces thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free triiodothyronine (fT3) levels, and thyroid hormone resistance indices in patients with obesity, changes strongly correlated with improvement in body composition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent studies have linked obesity with increased levels of TSH and thyroid hormones; however, the role that body fat distribution plays in this association remains unclear.
• This retrospective observational study evaluated the effects of MBS on thyroid hormone levels and thyroid hormone resistance in euthyroid individuals with obesity, focusing on the correlation with changes in body composition.
• Researchers included 470 patients with obesity (mean age, 33.4 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 37.9; 63.2% women) and 118 control individuals without obesity (mean BMI, 21.8), who had had normal levels of TSH, fT3, and free thyroxine.
• Among the patients with obesity, 125 underwent MBS and had thyroid tests both before and ≥ 3 months after surgery.
• Data on body composition and thyroid function were collected, and correlations between baseline and changes in thyroid function and body composition were assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with obesity had higher baseline TSH and fT3 levels (P < .001) and thyroid feedback quantile-based index (TFQI; P = .047) than those without obesity, with the values decreasing after MBS (all P < .001).
• Among individuals with obesity, preoperative TSH was positively correlated with the visceral fat area (VFA; P = .019) and body fat percentage (P = .013) and negatively correlated with skeletal muscle mass percentage (P = .024)
• The decrease in TSH post-surgery positively correlated with decreased VFA (P = .021) and decreased body fat percentage (P = .031).
• Decrease in VFA and body fat percentage after MBS was also associated with improved central thyroid hormone resistance indicated by TFQI.

IN PRACTICE:

“The relationship between obesity and [thyroid hormone] is bidirectional, indicating that addressing underlying thyroid disturbance could potentially benefit weight loss and metabolism,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yu Yan, MD, Department of Pancreatic and Metabolic Surgery, Medical School of Southeast University, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China, and published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of this study limited the ability to definitively attribute changes in thyroid function and thyroid hormone resistance to changes in body composition. The relatively short duration of the study and the exclusion of individuals taking medications affecting thyroid function may also limit the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Fundings for Clinical Trials from the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) reduces thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free triiodothyronine (fT3) levels, and thyroid hormone resistance indices in patients with obesity, changes strongly correlated with improvement in body composition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent studies have linked obesity with increased levels of TSH and thyroid hormones; however, the role that body fat distribution plays in this association remains unclear.
• This retrospective observational study evaluated the effects of MBS on thyroid hormone levels and thyroid hormone resistance in euthyroid individuals with obesity, focusing on the correlation with changes in body composition.
• Researchers included 470 patients with obesity (mean age, 33.4 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 37.9; 63.2% women) and 118 control individuals without obesity (mean BMI, 21.8), who had had normal levels of TSH, fT3, and free thyroxine.
• Among the patients with obesity, 125 underwent MBS and had thyroid tests both before and ≥ 3 months after surgery.
• Data on body composition and thyroid function were collected, and correlations between baseline and changes in thyroid function and body composition were assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with obesity had higher baseline TSH and fT3 levels (P < .001) and thyroid feedback quantile-based index (TFQI; P = .047) than those without obesity, with the values decreasing after MBS (all P < .001).
• Among individuals with obesity, preoperative TSH was positively correlated with the visceral fat area (VFA; P = .019) and body fat percentage (P = .013) and negatively correlated with skeletal muscle mass percentage (P = .024)
• The decrease in TSH post-surgery positively correlated with decreased VFA (P = .021) and decreased body fat percentage (P = .031).
• Decrease in VFA and body fat percentage after MBS was also associated with improved central thyroid hormone resistance indicated by TFQI.

IN PRACTICE:

“The relationship between obesity and [thyroid hormone] is bidirectional, indicating that addressing underlying thyroid disturbance could potentially benefit weight loss and metabolism,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yu Yan, MD, Department of Pancreatic and Metabolic Surgery, Medical School of Southeast University, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China, and published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of this study limited the ability to definitively attribute changes in thyroid function and thyroid hormone resistance to changes in body composition. The relatively short duration of the study and the exclusion of individuals taking medications affecting thyroid function may also limit the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Fundings for Clinical Trials from the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) reduces thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free triiodothyronine (fT3) levels, and thyroid hormone resistance indices in patients with obesity, changes strongly correlated with improvement in body composition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent studies have linked obesity with increased levels of TSH and thyroid hormones; however, the role that body fat distribution plays in this association remains unclear.
• This retrospective observational study evaluated the effects of MBS on thyroid hormone levels and thyroid hormone resistance in euthyroid individuals with obesity, focusing on the correlation with changes in body composition.
• Researchers included 470 patients with obesity (mean age, 33.4 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 37.9; 63.2% women) and 118 control individuals without obesity (mean BMI, 21.8), who had had normal levels of TSH, fT3, and free thyroxine.
• Among the patients with obesity, 125 underwent MBS and had thyroid tests both before and ≥ 3 months after surgery.
• Data on body composition and thyroid function were collected, and correlations between baseline and changes in thyroid function and body composition were assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with obesity had higher baseline TSH and fT3 levels (P < .001) and thyroid feedback quantile-based index (TFQI; P = .047) than those without obesity, with the values decreasing after MBS (all P < .001).
• Among individuals with obesity, preoperative TSH was positively correlated with the visceral fat area (VFA; P = .019) and body fat percentage (P = .013) and negatively correlated with skeletal muscle mass percentage (P = .024)
• The decrease in TSH post-surgery positively correlated with decreased VFA (P = .021) and decreased body fat percentage (P = .031).
• Decrease in VFA and body fat percentage after MBS was also associated with improved central thyroid hormone resistance indicated by TFQI.

IN PRACTICE:

“The relationship between obesity and [thyroid hormone] is bidirectional, indicating that addressing underlying thyroid disturbance could potentially benefit weight loss and metabolism,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Yu Yan, MD, Department of Pancreatic and Metabolic Surgery, Medical School of Southeast University, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China, and published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of this study limited the ability to definitively attribute changes in thyroid function and thyroid hormone resistance to changes in body composition. The relatively short duration of the study and the exclusion of individuals taking medications affecting thyroid function may also limit the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Fundings for Clinical Trials from the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution, high temperatures, and metabolic risk factors are driving global increases in stroke, contributing to 12 million cases and more than 7 million deaths from stroke each year, new data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed.

Between 1990 and 2021, the number of people who experienced a stroke increased to 11.9 million (up by 70% since 1990), while the number of stroke survivors rose to 93.8 million (up by 86%), and stroke-related deaths rose to 7.3 million (up by 44%), making stroke the third leading cause of death worldwide after ischemic heart disease and COVID-19, investigators found.

Stroke is highly preventable, the investigators noted, with 84% of the stroke burden in 2021 attributable to 23 modifiable risk factors, including air pollution, excess body weight, high blood pressure, smoking, and physical inactivity.

This means there are “tremendous opportunities to alter the trajectory of stroke risk for the next generation,” Catherine O. Johnson, MPH, PhD, co-author and lead research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

Top Risk Factor for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Since 1990, the contribution of high temperatures to poor health and early death due to stroke has risen 72%, a trend likely to increase in the future — underscoring the impact of environmental factors on the growing stroke burden, the authors said.

“Given that ambient air pollution is reciprocally linked with ambient temperature and climate change, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce air pollution cannot be overestimated,” Dr. Johnson said.

Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, chief clinical science officer for the American Heart Association, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that environmental factors such as air pollution, particulate matter from wildfires and other sources, and excessive heat are now recognized as major contributors to the risk for stroke. “This should not be surprising as we have long recognized the risks of stroke associated with toxins in cigarette smoke, which likely share mechanisms for vascular damage with pollutants,” Dr. Elkind said.

The data also reveal for the first time that ambient particulate matter air pollution is a top risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, contributing to 14% of the death and disability caused by this serious stroke subtype, on a par with smoking.

Dr. Elkind noted that smoking is “a major risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage. It makes sense that particulate air pollution would therefore similarly be a risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, which similarly damages blood vessels. Prior studies were likely too small or did not assess the role of air pollution in subarachnoid hemorrhage.”

The analysis also showed substantial increases between 1990 and 2021 in the global stroke burden linked to high body mass index (up by 88%), high blood sugar (up 32%), a diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks (up 23%), low physical activity (up 11%), high systolic blood pressure (up 7%), and a diet low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (up 5%).

“And with increasing exposure to risk factors such as high blood sugar and diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks, there is a critical need for interventions focused on obesity and metabolic syndromes,” Dr. Johnson said.

“Identifying sustainable ways to work with communities to take action to prevent and control modifiable risk factors for stroke is essential to address this growing crisis,” she added.
 

Prevention Strategies Fall Short

The data also showed that stroke-related disability-adjusted life-years rose from around 121.4 million years of healthy life lost in 1990 to 160.5 million years in 2021, making stroke the fourth leading cause of health loss worldwide after COVID-19, ischemic heart disease, and neonatal disorders.

“The global growth of the number of people who develop stroke and died from or remain disabled by stroke is growing fast, strongly suggesting that currently used stroke prevention strategies are not sufficiently effective,” lead author Valery L. Feigin, MD, PhD, from Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, and affiliate professor at IHME, said in the release.

“New, proven effective population-wide and motivational individual prevention strategies that could be applied to all people at risk of having a stroke, regardless of the level of risk, as recommended in the recent Lancet Neurology Commission on Stroke should be implemented across the globe urgently,” said Dr. Feigin.

Dr. Elkind said the AHA supports research on the effects of air quality on risk for vascular injury and stroke and has “long advocated for policies to mitigate the adverse health impacts of air pollutants, including reduction of vehicle emissions and renewable portfolio standards, taking into account racial, ethnic, and economic disparities.”

“AHA, and the healthcare sector more broadly, must take a leadership role in recommending policies to improve environmental air quality and in working with the private sector and industry to improve air quality,” Dr. Elkind said.

In an accompanying commentary, Ming Liu, MD, and Simiao Wu, MD, PhD, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, wrote that “pragmatic solutions to the enormous and increasing stroke burden include surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.”

“Surveillance strategies include establishing a national-level framework for regular monitoring of stroke burden, risk factors, and healthcare services via community-based surveys and health records,” they noted.

“Artificial intelligence and mobile technologies might not only facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based health services but also increase the number of data sources and encourage participation of multidisciplinary collaborators, potentially improving the validity and accuracy of future GBD estimates,” they added.

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Author disclosures are listed with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution, high temperatures, and metabolic risk factors are driving global increases in stroke, contributing to 12 million cases and more than 7 million deaths from stroke each year, new data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed.

Between 1990 and 2021, the number of people who experienced a stroke increased to 11.9 million (up by 70% since 1990), while the number of stroke survivors rose to 93.8 million (up by 86%), and stroke-related deaths rose to 7.3 million (up by 44%), making stroke the third leading cause of death worldwide after ischemic heart disease and COVID-19, investigators found.

Stroke is highly preventable, the investigators noted, with 84% of the stroke burden in 2021 attributable to 23 modifiable risk factors, including air pollution, excess body weight, high blood pressure, smoking, and physical inactivity.

This means there are “tremendous opportunities to alter the trajectory of stroke risk for the next generation,” Catherine O. Johnson, MPH, PhD, co-author and lead research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

Top Risk Factor for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Since 1990, the contribution of high temperatures to poor health and early death due to stroke has risen 72%, a trend likely to increase in the future — underscoring the impact of environmental factors on the growing stroke burden, the authors said.

“Given that ambient air pollution is reciprocally linked with ambient temperature and climate change, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce air pollution cannot be overestimated,” Dr. Johnson said.

Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, chief clinical science officer for the American Heart Association, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that environmental factors such as air pollution, particulate matter from wildfires and other sources, and excessive heat are now recognized as major contributors to the risk for stroke. “This should not be surprising as we have long recognized the risks of stroke associated with toxins in cigarette smoke, which likely share mechanisms for vascular damage with pollutants,” Dr. Elkind said.

The data also reveal for the first time that ambient particulate matter air pollution is a top risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, contributing to 14% of the death and disability caused by this serious stroke subtype, on a par with smoking.

Dr. Elkind noted that smoking is “a major risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage. It makes sense that particulate air pollution would therefore similarly be a risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, which similarly damages blood vessels. Prior studies were likely too small or did not assess the role of air pollution in subarachnoid hemorrhage.”

The analysis also showed substantial increases between 1990 and 2021 in the global stroke burden linked to high body mass index (up by 88%), high blood sugar (up 32%), a diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks (up 23%), low physical activity (up 11%), high systolic blood pressure (up 7%), and a diet low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (up 5%).

“And with increasing exposure to risk factors such as high blood sugar and diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks, there is a critical need for interventions focused on obesity and metabolic syndromes,” Dr. Johnson said.

“Identifying sustainable ways to work with communities to take action to prevent and control modifiable risk factors for stroke is essential to address this growing crisis,” she added.
 

Prevention Strategies Fall Short

The data also showed that stroke-related disability-adjusted life-years rose from around 121.4 million years of healthy life lost in 1990 to 160.5 million years in 2021, making stroke the fourth leading cause of health loss worldwide after COVID-19, ischemic heart disease, and neonatal disorders.

“The global growth of the number of people who develop stroke and died from or remain disabled by stroke is growing fast, strongly suggesting that currently used stroke prevention strategies are not sufficiently effective,” lead author Valery L. Feigin, MD, PhD, from Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, and affiliate professor at IHME, said in the release.

“New, proven effective population-wide and motivational individual prevention strategies that could be applied to all people at risk of having a stroke, regardless of the level of risk, as recommended in the recent Lancet Neurology Commission on Stroke should be implemented across the globe urgently,” said Dr. Feigin.

Dr. Elkind said the AHA supports research on the effects of air quality on risk for vascular injury and stroke and has “long advocated for policies to mitigate the adverse health impacts of air pollutants, including reduction of vehicle emissions and renewable portfolio standards, taking into account racial, ethnic, and economic disparities.”

“AHA, and the healthcare sector more broadly, must take a leadership role in recommending policies to improve environmental air quality and in working with the private sector and industry to improve air quality,” Dr. Elkind said.

In an accompanying commentary, Ming Liu, MD, and Simiao Wu, MD, PhD, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, wrote that “pragmatic solutions to the enormous and increasing stroke burden include surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.”

“Surveillance strategies include establishing a national-level framework for regular monitoring of stroke burden, risk factors, and healthcare services via community-based surveys and health records,” they noted.

“Artificial intelligence and mobile technologies might not only facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based health services but also increase the number of data sources and encourage participation of multidisciplinary collaborators, potentially improving the validity and accuracy of future GBD estimates,” they added.

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Author disclosures are listed with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Air pollution, high temperatures, and metabolic risk factors are driving global increases in stroke, contributing to 12 million cases and more than 7 million deaths from stroke each year, new data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study showed.

Between 1990 and 2021, the number of people who experienced a stroke increased to 11.9 million (up by 70% since 1990), while the number of stroke survivors rose to 93.8 million (up by 86%), and stroke-related deaths rose to 7.3 million (up by 44%), making stroke the third leading cause of death worldwide after ischemic heart disease and COVID-19, investigators found.

Stroke is highly preventable, the investigators noted, with 84% of the stroke burden in 2021 attributable to 23 modifiable risk factors, including air pollution, excess body weight, high blood pressure, smoking, and physical inactivity.

This means there are “tremendous opportunities to alter the trajectory of stroke risk for the next generation,” Catherine O. Johnson, MPH, PhD, co-author and lead research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.

The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

Top Risk Factor for Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Since 1990, the contribution of high temperatures to poor health and early death due to stroke has risen 72%, a trend likely to increase in the future — underscoring the impact of environmental factors on the growing stroke burden, the authors said.

“Given that ambient air pollution is reciprocally linked with ambient temperature and climate change, the importance of urgent climate actions and measures to reduce air pollution cannot be overestimated,” Dr. Johnson said.

Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, chief clinical science officer for the American Heart Association, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization that environmental factors such as air pollution, particulate matter from wildfires and other sources, and excessive heat are now recognized as major contributors to the risk for stroke. “This should not be surprising as we have long recognized the risks of stroke associated with toxins in cigarette smoke, which likely share mechanisms for vascular damage with pollutants,” Dr. Elkind said.

The data also reveal for the first time that ambient particulate matter air pollution is a top risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, contributing to 14% of the death and disability caused by this serious stroke subtype, on a par with smoking.

Dr. Elkind noted that smoking is “a major risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage. It makes sense that particulate air pollution would therefore similarly be a risk factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage, which similarly damages blood vessels. Prior studies were likely too small or did not assess the role of air pollution in subarachnoid hemorrhage.”

The analysis also showed substantial increases between 1990 and 2021 in the global stroke burden linked to high body mass index (up by 88%), high blood sugar (up 32%), a diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks (up 23%), low physical activity (up 11%), high systolic blood pressure (up 7%), and a diet low in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (up 5%).

“And with increasing exposure to risk factors such as high blood sugar and diet high in sugar-sweetened drinks, there is a critical need for interventions focused on obesity and metabolic syndromes,” Dr. Johnson said.

“Identifying sustainable ways to work with communities to take action to prevent and control modifiable risk factors for stroke is essential to address this growing crisis,” she added.
 

Prevention Strategies Fall Short

The data also showed that stroke-related disability-adjusted life-years rose from around 121.4 million years of healthy life lost in 1990 to 160.5 million years in 2021, making stroke the fourth leading cause of health loss worldwide after COVID-19, ischemic heart disease, and neonatal disorders.

“The global growth of the number of people who develop stroke and died from or remain disabled by stroke is growing fast, strongly suggesting that currently used stroke prevention strategies are not sufficiently effective,” lead author Valery L. Feigin, MD, PhD, from Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, and affiliate professor at IHME, said in the release.

“New, proven effective population-wide and motivational individual prevention strategies that could be applied to all people at risk of having a stroke, regardless of the level of risk, as recommended in the recent Lancet Neurology Commission on Stroke should be implemented across the globe urgently,” said Dr. Feigin.

Dr. Elkind said the AHA supports research on the effects of air quality on risk for vascular injury and stroke and has “long advocated for policies to mitigate the adverse health impacts of air pollutants, including reduction of vehicle emissions and renewable portfolio standards, taking into account racial, ethnic, and economic disparities.”

“AHA, and the healthcare sector more broadly, must take a leadership role in recommending policies to improve environmental air quality and in working with the private sector and industry to improve air quality,” Dr. Elkind said.

In an accompanying commentary, Ming Liu, MD, and Simiao Wu, MD, PhD, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, wrote that “pragmatic solutions to the enormous and increasing stroke burden include surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.”

“Surveillance strategies include establishing a national-level framework for regular monitoring of stroke burden, risk factors, and healthcare services via community-based surveys and health records,” they noted.

“Artificial intelligence and mobile technologies might not only facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based health services but also increase the number of data sources and encourage participation of multidisciplinary collaborators, potentially improving the validity and accuracy of future GBD estimates,” they added.

This study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Author disclosures are listed with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they have steered patients to buying higher-priced insulins so that they can reap more profits.

The federal agency took action against CVS Health’s Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group’s Optum and their respective group purchasing organizations — Zinc Health Services, Ascent Health Services, and Emisar Pharma Services. The three PBMs administer 80% of prescriptions in the United States, the FTC said in a statement announcing the action.

The agency filed an administrative complaint, which means its allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. It will not be heard in a criminal court.

The three PBMs “have extracted millions of dollars off the backs of patients who need life-saving medications,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in the statement.

The FTC action is not the first taken by a government agency against PBMs. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics in March 2023, alleging antitrust violations.

The FTC’s complaint, which is not yet public, alleges that PBMs excluded lower-priced insulins from their formularies “in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products.”

The FTC describes a market in which PBMs, as they consolidated market power, began to extract higher rebates from drug makers. In turn, insulin manufacturers started raising their prices. That allowed PBMs to collect larger rebates, even as drug makers profited, according to the FTC.

The PBMs “engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act by incentivizing manufacturers to inflate insulin list prices, restricting patients’ access to more affordable insulins on drug formularies and shifting the cost of high list price insulins to vulnerable patient populations,” said the FTC, in its statement.

Andrea Nelson, chief legal officer for The Cigna Group, said in a statement that the lawsuit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks on pharmacy benefit managers, following the FTC’s biased and misleading July 2024 report, which Express Scripts demanded the Commission retract earlier this week.”
 

Conduct ‘Raises Serious Concerns’

Drug makers are not off the hook, said the FTC. Mr. Rao said in a separate statement that “all drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions.”

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report issued by the FTC in July, in which it accused the industry of driving small pharmacies out of business and of having extraordinary control over where Americans access prescription drugs and how much they pay.

The agency also noted in that report that some PBMs had still not responded to its requests for information, some 2 years after first asking.

Cigna’s Express Scripts sued the FTC on September 17, 2024, claiming that the report hurt the company’s reputation.

The report is “74 pages of unsupported innuendo leveled against Express Scripts and other PBMs under a false and defamatory headline and accompanied by a false and defamatory press release,” said the Cigna suit.

Cigna is seeking to have the report scrubbed from the FTC website and an injunction that would bar FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan from participating in any FTC business relating to Express Scripts.

Cigna’s Ms. Nelson accused the FTC of trying to “score political points” and said that forcing PBMs to include some drugs on its formularies “will drive drug prices higher in this country.”

CVS Health’s Caremark and UnitedHealth’s Optum also pushed back, as did the industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.

“This action not only fails to accurately consider the role of the entire prescription drug supply chain, but disregards positive progress, supported by PBMs, in making insulin more affordable for patients,” the association said in a statement. “In contrast to the rhetoric, the current insulin market is actually working, with PBMs effectively leveraging greater competition to drive down insulin prices and doing their part to make insulin affordable for patients through innovative programs,” said the group.

“The FTC has missed the mark entirely,” David Whitrap, vice president for external affairs at CVS Health, said in a statement emailed to this news organization.

CVS Health members “on average pay less than $25, far below list prices and far below the Biden Administration’s $35 cap,” said Mr. Whitrap, who added that the PBM had protected customers from “pharma price-gouging.”

UnitedHealth’s Optum also said that it had reduced insulin prices for members to an average of less than $18 per month. “This baseless action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works,” wrote Elizabeth Hoff, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, in an email to this news organization.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they have steered patients to buying higher-priced insulins so that they can reap more profits.

The federal agency took action against CVS Health’s Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group’s Optum and their respective group purchasing organizations — Zinc Health Services, Ascent Health Services, and Emisar Pharma Services. The three PBMs administer 80% of prescriptions in the United States, the FTC said in a statement announcing the action.

The agency filed an administrative complaint, which means its allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. It will not be heard in a criminal court.

The three PBMs “have extracted millions of dollars off the backs of patients who need life-saving medications,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in the statement.

The FTC action is not the first taken by a government agency against PBMs. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics in March 2023, alleging antitrust violations.

The FTC’s complaint, which is not yet public, alleges that PBMs excluded lower-priced insulins from their formularies “in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products.”

The FTC describes a market in which PBMs, as they consolidated market power, began to extract higher rebates from drug makers. In turn, insulin manufacturers started raising their prices. That allowed PBMs to collect larger rebates, even as drug makers profited, according to the FTC.

The PBMs “engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act by incentivizing manufacturers to inflate insulin list prices, restricting patients’ access to more affordable insulins on drug formularies and shifting the cost of high list price insulins to vulnerable patient populations,” said the FTC, in its statement.

Andrea Nelson, chief legal officer for The Cigna Group, said in a statement that the lawsuit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks on pharmacy benefit managers, following the FTC’s biased and misleading July 2024 report, which Express Scripts demanded the Commission retract earlier this week.”
 

Conduct ‘Raises Serious Concerns’

Drug makers are not off the hook, said the FTC. Mr. Rao said in a separate statement that “all drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions.”

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report issued by the FTC in July, in which it accused the industry of driving small pharmacies out of business and of having extraordinary control over where Americans access prescription drugs and how much they pay.

The agency also noted in that report that some PBMs had still not responded to its requests for information, some 2 years after first asking.

Cigna’s Express Scripts sued the FTC on September 17, 2024, claiming that the report hurt the company’s reputation.

The report is “74 pages of unsupported innuendo leveled against Express Scripts and other PBMs under a false and defamatory headline and accompanied by a false and defamatory press release,” said the Cigna suit.

Cigna is seeking to have the report scrubbed from the FTC website and an injunction that would bar FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan from participating in any FTC business relating to Express Scripts.

Cigna’s Ms. Nelson accused the FTC of trying to “score political points” and said that forcing PBMs to include some drugs on its formularies “will drive drug prices higher in this country.”

CVS Health’s Caremark and UnitedHealth’s Optum also pushed back, as did the industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.

“This action not only fails to accurately consider the role of the entire prescription drug supply chain, but disregards positive progress, supported by PBMs, in making insulin more affordable for patients,” the association said in a statement. “In contrast to the rhetoric, the current insulin market is actually working, with PBMs effectively leveraging greater competition to drive down insulin prices and doing their part to make insulin affordable for patients through innovative programs,” said the group.

“The FTC has missed the mark entirely,” David Whitrap, vice president for external affairs at CVS Health, said in a statement emailed to this news organization.

CVS Health members “on average pay less than $25, far below list prices and far below the Biden Administration’s $35 cap,” said Mr. Whitrap, who added that the PBM had protected customers from “pharma price-gouging.”

UnitedHealth’s Optum also said that it had reduced insulin prices for members to an average of less than $18 per month. “This baseless action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works,” wrote Elizabeth Hoff, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, in an email to this news organization.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging that they have steered patients to buying higher-priced insulins so that they can reap more profits.

The federal agency took action against CVS Health’s Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group’s Optum and their respective group purchasing organizations — Zinc Health Services, Ascent Health Services, and Emisar Pharma Services. The three PBMs administer 80% of prescriptions in the United States, the FTC said in a statement announcing the action.

The agency filed an administrative complaint, which means its allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. It will not be heard in a criminal court.

The three PBMs “have extracted millions of dollars off the backs of patients who need life-saving medications,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in the statement.

The FTC action is not the first taken by a government agency against PBMs. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics in March 2023, alleging antitrust violations.

The FTC’s complaint, which is not yet public, alleges that PBMs excluded lower-priced insulins from their formularies “in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products.”

The FTC describes a market in which PBMs, as they consolidated market power, began to extract higher rebates from drug makers. In turn, insulin manufacturers started raising their prices. That allowed PBMs to collect larger rebates, even as drug makers profited, according to the FTC.

The PBMs “engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act by incentivizing manufacturers to inflate insulin list prices, restricting patients’ access to more affordable insulins on drug formularies and shifting the cost of high list price insulins to vulnerable patient populations,” said the FTC, in its statement.

Andrea Nelson, chief legal officer for The Cigna Group, said in a statement that the lawsuit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks on pharmacy benefit managers, following the FTC’s biased and misleading July 2024 report, which Express Scripts demanded the Commission retract earlier this week.”
 

Conduct ‘Raises Serious Concerns’

Drug makers are not off the hook, said the FTC. Mr. Rao said in a separate statement that “all drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions.”

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report issued by the FTC in July, in which it accused the industry of driving small pharmacies out of business and of having extraordinary control over where Americans access prescription drugs and how much they pay.

The agency also noted in that report that some PBMs had still not responded to its requests for information, some 2 years after first asking.

Cigna’s Express Scripts sued the FTC on September 17, 2024, claiming that the report hurt the company’s reputation.

The report is “74 pages of unsupported innuendo leveled against Express Scripts and other PBMs under a false and defamatory headline and accompanied by a false and defamatory press release,” said the Cigna suit.

Cigna is seeking to have the report scrubbed from the FTC website and an injunction that would bar FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan from participating in any FTC business relating to Express Scripts.

Cigna’s Ms. Nelson accused the FTC of trying to “score political points” and said that forcing PBMs to include some drugs on its formularies “will drive drug prices higher in this country.”

CVS Health’s Caremark and UnitedHealth’s Optum also pushed back, as did the industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.

“This action not only fails to accurately consider the role of the entire prescription drug supply chain, but disregards positive progress, supported by PBMs, in making insulin more affordable for patients,” the association said in a statement. “In contrast to the rhetoric, the current insulin market is actually working, with PBMs effectively leveraging greater competition to drive down insulin prices and doing their part to make insulin affordable for patients through innovative programs,” said the group.

“The FTC has missed the mark entirely,” David Whitrap, vice president for external affairs at CVS Health, said in a statement emailed to this news organization.

CVS Health members “on average pay less than $25, far below list prices and far below the Biden Administration’s $35 cap,” said Mr. Whitrap, who added that the PBM had protected customers from “pharma price-gouging.”

UnitedHealth’s Optum also said that it had reduced insulin prices for members to an average of less than $18 per month. “This baseless action demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works,” wrote Elizabeth Hoff, a spokesperson for UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, in an email to this news organization.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.