Feature

When a large rheumatology clinic in Richmond, Virginia, heard that Medicare would be reimbursing patient navigators, they decided to launch their own virtual navigator program. 

“We read about it and felt like it was the perfect representation of what we were already trying to do,” said Blake Wehman, founder and CEO of Remission Medical, which offers virtual diagnosis and longitudinal care in rheumatology.

Mr. Wehman has plans to start submitting for these principal illness navigation (PIN) codes in 2025. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2024 began paying navigators who assist Medicare patients with high-risk conditions, which could include rheumatologic diseases. “The codes are not limited to a specific set of diagnoses; rather, the definition of a serious, high-risk condition is dependent on clinical judgment,” the agency clarified. 

CMS established this provision in the CY 2024 Physician Fee Schedule final rule. 

Reimbursing patient navigators is long overdue, noted Edith Williams, PhD, MS, director of the Center for Community Health and Prevention and founding director of the Office of Health Equity Research at the University of Rochester in New York. “It’s something our patients need. It’s something that the science is telling us can impact outcomes as an adjunct to clinical care,” she said. 

John Schlia

Dr. Williams said the new CMS codes “got our departments talking about what this policy is and how it would translate into patient care.”

The codes apply when navigators are assigned to support patients with high-risk conditions who need assistance connecting with clinical and other resources, including any unmet social determinants of health needs, or in diagnosis or treatment of their medical problems.

“Having a navigator by their side to help get through all the clinical and administrative challenges gives people an advocate and a partner who is with them and their families every step of the way to help make the journey easier,” said a CMS spokesperson. 

Not all navigator programs may qualify for the new codes. Some are supported by grants and don’t bill patient insurance. However, they all share a common goal: to guide patients through the healthcare continuum and assist with appointments and medication adherence. 
 

Identifying ‘Root Causes’ of Barriers

Navigators represent a wide variety of backgrounds, ranging from healthcare professionals to students or even patients themselves. They generally don’t provide medical advice. “However, we are responsible for making sure our patients and their families are educated and aware, then assist with guidance on their path,” said Katie Costillo, BSW, CPPN, patient navigator and program manager with the Lupus Foundation of America, Heartland Region.

“Training and experience in engaging and building rapport is essential to assisting patients overcome obstacles that limit their access to healthcare,” she said. Narrowing down with patients the root causes of their barriers and then identifying appropriate and available community resources is key. 

Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of adding a navigator to a rheumatology patient’s care plan. In one study, a group of Boston researchers determined that navigators played a useful role in reducing adherence barriers to oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The navigators uncovered several concerns among 107 rheumatology patients, including fear of adverse events and medication effectiveness. 

They also helped to facilitate patient-physician communication, developed strategies to improve medication adherence, and provided medication and diagnosis education. Patients reported satisfaction with the navigator experience.

A study Dr. Williams coauthored that examined behavioral interventions to support African American women with systemic lupus erythematosus found that patient navigator participants had superior coping scores, compared with those engaged in peer-to-peer methodology and patient support groups.

“We had a lot of success with the mentorship program, too,” Dr. Williams said. Navigator services, however, offer more one-on-one attention, “and it’s more tailored to what the person needs rather than the set curriculum that the mentors delivered to their mentees.”
 

Supporting Patients With Lupus

Ideally, navigators should be able to relate to patients and know what they’re going through, Dr. Williams said. This is someone whom the patient can trust and depend on. “That’s where the benefit of having someone who is also a patient lies because they’re ultimately relatable to other patients. But different institutions have taken different approaches to this.” 

Some programs focus on specific rheumatologic conditions. The Lupus Foundation of America, for example, established patient navigator programs to assist patients with lupus in four markets across the country. 

The Heartland patient navigator program is available for all patients with lupus within its region, which includes Kansas, Missouri, and central and southern Illinois. As a navigator, Ms. Costillo has been assisting patients since 2022. In 2023, she began meeting with patients at the Washington University Lupus Clinic (WULC) in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Navigators work directly with patients before and after their appointment to ensure follow-up and reduce missed appointments. “They help lupus patients connect with community services and overcoming barriers to access and care. The goal of this position is to improve overall disease management, which results in better health outcomes,” Ms. Costillo said. 

Since its inception, the patient navigator program at WULC has shown a decrease in patient no-call no-shows and an increase in requests to reschedule as opposed to not showing up for their scheduled appointment, based on history. 

Patients have reported fewer barriers to transportation and improvement in access to resources, support, and disease education. “Our patients have also stated [that] meeting with the navigator during their appointments has helped them to feel heard, understood, and supported,” Ms. Costillo said.
 

Navigator Work Is Not Without Challenges

A total of 90% of patients with lupus are women, and women of color are two to three times more likely to develop lupus in their lifetime. 

“Based on socioeconomic statistics, lupus patients are in a demographic that is commonly underserved, underfunded, and often overlooked. Finding appropriate local community resources for a patient who must choose between feeding her family or paying for transportation to multiple physician appointments is a common problem,” Ms. Costillo said.

Much of the assistance that became available during the COVID pandemic is starting to disappear. “With the rising costs of daily living, we are having to find creative and alternative ways to break down barriers and find support to fill those gaps,” she continued.

Getting insurance coverage of patients is another challenge. Many patients with lupus will be prescribed a treatment that insurance refuses to cover even after the physician disputes it.

Additionally, many patients with lupus are unable to work to support their family. A majority who apply for Social Security Disability Insurance are denied on their first and second attempts, “requiring multiple hearings and pages of documentation from their physicians,” Ms. Costillo said. 
 

Students Serve as Navigators

One inner-city program is seeking to increase access to healthcare services to patients with lupus and lupus nephritis in underserved communities. In 2021, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York City, in partnership with the Brooklyn Free Clinic and Brooklyn Health Disparities Center, launched a program to teach navigator skills to second-year medical students. 

The students assist patients at the Arthritis Clinic at University Hospital at Downstate. “Many of our patients have either low medical literacy or difficulty with English. Many of them are immigrants,” said Ellen M. Ginzler, MD, MPH, SUNY Downstate’s professor emerita and former vice-chair for research and rheumatology division chief. 

Dr. Ginzler sought out navigator candidates who showed a strong interest in working with underserved patients with complicated, severe disease who struggled with keeping appointments or adhering to medication regimens. The program also gave preference to students fluent in other languages such as Spanish. 

All these efforts have generated improvements in care.

Assessing the program’s effectiveness in a cross-sectional study, Dr. Ginzler and colleagues reported that 94% of navigators were able to schedule appointments and 87% assisted with prescriptions. Navigators also had high success rates in answering medical questions, getting in touch with a patient’s doctor, and reminding patients of medical appointments. 

Medical student Jeremy Wilson, a coauthor of the study, served as a navigator for a woman with lupus and scleroderma for many years, along with other comorbidities.

Mr. Wilson went above and beyond for this patient, helping to secure social services supports that included accompanying her to clinic visits and serving as her advocate. “She found an enormous difference in how she was treated when she went to these clinics because the doctors in those clinics took her much more seriously,” Dr. Ginzler said. Mr. Wilson ran interference to secure clinic appointments and worked with the patient’s rheumatology fellow in the clinic to get approval for medications. 

Mr. Wilson and the patient formed a great bond. “It not only helped the patient, but it helped Jeremy tremendously in terms of how he felt about his medical career,” Dr. Ginzler said. 

The program has since expanded to include patients with other rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis, and also offers navigator services in dermatology. 

A total of 21 students to date have completed the second year of the program. “We’ve just selected eight more,” Dr. Ginzler said. Some of the students continue to do the program in their third or even fourth year as they’re applying for residencies. 

A student-run, unpublished survey of nine students in the SUNY program found that all nine reported high confidence in identifying social factors that impact patient health and well-being, compared with four who reported high confidence prior to starting the program. “Additionally, students reported increased confidence in providing comprehensive care in rheumatology and dermatology, and interdisciplinary collaboration,” study author Alejandra K. Moncayo, MPH, and colleagues wrote. 
 

When Navigators Go Virtual

Remission Medical offers its navigator service through its own standalone virtual clinic. 

Pain associated with rheumatologic conditions increases the urgency to see a doctor. The goal of the virtual RemissionNavigator program is to meet rheumatology patients where they live, to bridge care gaps and reduce wait times, said Mr. Wehman.

RemissionNavigator accomplishes this through video visits and unlimited texting to its network of board-certified rheumatologists or rheumatology-focused advanced practice providers. Experts can answer questions about why labs are ordered, why a patient may have received a certain diagnosis, or provide detailed explanations of a rheumatic condition. 

“There are instances where improvement for the patient means waiting a couple days for us versus 45 days for their brick-and-mortar choice,” Mr. Wehman said. 

The program currently has 36 subscribers to Remission’s services, which include navigation. “We have 15 providers in a blend of employed and contracted relationships with Remission,” Mr. Wehman said. 

Even in its infancy, the navigator program has produced some success stories. “We had a patient tell us that thanks to us, he was seen faster, found relief immediately through our diagnosis and prescription of methotrexate, felt better at work, lost weight, and was happier in general,” Mr. Wehman said. 

Another patient was making monthly, 90-minute trips to Richmond for infusion services. Through the virtual program’s assistance, she is now receiving care from home and can get her monthly infusions at a local clinic. 

Ultimately, the goal is to help rheumatology move into an era of value-based care where the transition from fee-for-service to per patient will enable optimized care models and better accessibility, Mr. Wehman said. “It will not happen overnight, but every day we work toward this future.”
 

VA Targets Rheumatology Care

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has also explored the use of navigator services in rheumatology, including virtual services. 

VA uses an integrated, interdisciplinary model that manages each veteran’s individual healthcare needs through a coordinated effort among providers, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and other health professionals, according to VA press secretary Terrence Hayes.

Care coordination may include supporting scheduling appointments, managing chronic conditions, and coordinating care across different medical departments. “This coordination is particularly important in managing complex rheumatologic conditions, where multiple providers may be involved,” Mr. Hayes said.

Additionally, VA has launched a national telerheumatology initiative to improve access to rheumatology providers in rural areas. The initiative will assist veterans in understanding the telehealth system, navigating appointments, and ensuring they have the necessary technology for virtual consultations. 

“It will also facilitate communication between rheumatologists, primary care providers, and other specialists, ensuring that all team members are aligned in their approach to the veteran’s care,” Mr. Hayes said.
 

Who Will Take Advantage of New Codes? 

Currently, Remission Medical operates on a cash-pay model, but the company intends to transition to insurance-based coverage in 2025. 

Remission Medical also partners directly with preexisting healthcare systems and clinics such as Sentara Health and OrthoVirginia, where a PIN program, powered by Remission Medical’s virtual rheumatology network, may be explored as well. 

The company offers its partners synchronous virtual visits and e-consults. It’s likely that these larger organizations will explore coverage for navigator services for Medicare and private insurance. “We can be there to support them as they decide to implement this,” Mr. Wehman said.

Taking advantage of CMS’s navigator PIN codes is an eventual goal. Remission Medical has not submitted the codes yet, “but we do intend to as we continue to grow our membership count,” Mr. Wehman said. “We hope to provide coverage for most of the US and submit the codes to reimbursement by early to mid-2025.” 

In terms of reimbursement, the VA operates under a different payment model than Medicare or private insurance, focusing on providing integrated care within the VA system rather than reimbursing for specific services such as patient navigation.

While the SUNY clinic takes care of Medicare patients, it’s unlikely that the new CMS codes for navigators would apply to medical students. Students get paid a monthly stipend for doing navigator work. “There’s a policy about what students can get paid, and how many hours they can work,” Dr. Ginzler clarified. 

The SUNY Downstate and Lupus Foundation navigator programs rely on grants to sustain their services. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals has funded both programs, and the SUNY program received an additional grant from Janssen to expand its offerings. 

Because it’s grant funded, the navigator position at the Lupus Foundation does not bill patient insurance, Ms. Costillo explained. 
 

Navigator Work Requires Training

Before they start working with patients, navigators often go through a vetting or training process. At Remission Medical, a clinical leadership team does a synchronous interview, background check, and CV review of its potential navigators. 

Even before she became a navigator, Ms. Costillo had a strong baseline education in this work. She has a bachelor’s degree in social work and 15 years of experience in social services working with disabled, vulnerable, and underserved populations. Some of her fellow navigators at the Lupus Foundation of America also have degrees in social work. 

Ms. Costillo underwent training with the Patient-Centered Education & Research Institute to become a certified professional patient navigator. Her name is on the national registry. The curriculum covered various aspects of medical care such as patient and care team interactions and communications, health and clinical knowledge, patient care coordination and resources, and using evidence-based approaches. 

“For our lupus patients, it is essential that navigators understand the disease and the impact on patients and families, treatments available and those in the pipelines, and also the ins and outs of various insurance options,” Ms. Costillo said.

Mr. Wehman, Dr. Williams, and Ms. Costillo reported no disclosures. Dr. Ginzler has been a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.

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

When a large rheumatology clinic in Richmond, Virginia, heard that Medicare would be reimbursing patient navigators, they decided to launch their own virtual navigator program. 

“We read about it and felt like it was the perfect representation of what we were already trying to do,” said Blake Wehman, founder and CEO of Remission Medical, which offers virtual diagnosis and longitudinal care in rheumatology.

Mr. Wehman has plans to start submitting for these principal illness navigation (PIN) codes in 2025. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2024 began paying navigators who assist Medicare patients with high-risk conditions, which could include rheumatologic diseases. “The codes are not limited to a specific set of diagnoses; rather, the definition of a serious, high-risk condition is dependent on clinical judgment,” the agency clarified. 

CMS established this provision in the CY 2024 Physician Fee Schedule final rule. 

Reimbursing patient navigators is long overdue, noted Edith Williams, PhD, MS, director of the Center for Community Health and Prevention and founding director of the Office of Health Equity Research at the University of Rochester in New York. “It’s something our patients need. It’s something that the science is telling us can impact outcomes as an adjunct to clinical care,” she said. 

John Schlia

Dr. Williams said the new CMS codes “got our departments talking about what this policy is and how it would translate into patient care.”

The codes apply when navigators are assigned to support patients with high-risk conditions who need assistance connecting with clinical and other resources, including any unmet social determinants of health needs, or in diagnosis or treatment of their medical problems.

“Having a navigator by their side to help get through all the clinical and administrative challenges gives people an advocate and a partner who is with them and their families every step of the way to help make the journey easier,” said a CMS spokesperson. 

Not all navigator programs may qualify for the new codes. Some are supported by grants and don’t bill patient insurance. However, they all share a common goal: to guide patients through the healthcare continuum and assist with appointments and medication adherence. 
 

Identifying ‘Root Causes’ of Barriers

Navigators represent a wide variety of backgrounds, ranging from healthcare professionals to students or even patients themselves. They generally don’t provide medical advice. “However, we are responsible for making sure our patients and their families are educated and aware, then assist with guidance on their path,” said Katie Costillo, BSW, CPPN, patient navigator and program manager with the Lupus Foundation of America, Heartland Region.

“Training and experience in engaging and building rapport is essential to assisting patients overcome obstacles that limit their access to healthcare,” she said. Narrowing down with patients the root causes of their barriers and then identifying appropriate and available community resources is key. 

Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of adding a navigator to a rheumatology patient’s care plan. In one study, a group of Boston researchers determined that navigators played a useful role in reducing adherence barriers to oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The navigators uncovered several concerns among 107 rheumatology patients, including fear of adverse events and medication effectiveness. 

They also helped to facilitate patient-physician communication, developed strategies to improve medication adherence, and provided medication and diagnosis education. Patients reported satisfaction with the navigator experience.

A study Dr. Williams coauthored that examined behavioral interventions to support African American women with systemic lupus erythematosus found that patient navigator participants had superior coping scores, compared with those engaged in peer-to-peer methodology and patient support groups.

“We had a lot of success with the mentorship program, too,” Dr. Williams said. Navigator services, however, offer more one-on-one attention, “and it’s more tailored to what the person needs rather than the set curriculum that the mentors delivered to their mentees.”
 

Supporting Patients With Lupus

Ideally, navigators should be able to relate to patients and know what they’re going through, Dr. Williams said. This is someone whom the patient can trust and depend on. “That’s where the benefit of having someone who is also a patient lies because they’re ultimately relatable to other patients. But different institutions have taken different approaches to this.” 

Some programs focus on specific rheumatologic conditions. The Lupus Foundation of America, for example, established patient navigator programs to assist patients with lupus in four markets across the country. 

The Heartland patient navigator program is available for all patients with lupus within its region, which includes Kansas, Missouri, and central and southern Illinois. As a navigator, Ms. Costillo has been assisting patients since 2022. In 2023, she began meeting with patients at the Washington University Lupus Clinic (WULC) in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Navigators work directly with patients before and after their appointment to ensure follow-up and reduce missed appointments. “They help lupus patients connect with community services and overcoming barriers to access and care. The goal of this position is to improve overall disease management, which results in better health outcomes,” Ms. Costillo said. 

Since its inception, the patient navigator program at WULC has shown a decrease in patient no-call no-shows and an increase in requests to reschedule as opposed to not showing up for their scheduled appointment, based on history. 

Patients have reported fewer barriers to transportation and improvement in access to resources, support, and disease education. “Our patients have also stated [that] meeting with the navigator during their appointments has helped them to feel heard, understood, and supported,” Ms. Costillo said.
 

Navigator Work Is Not Without Challenges

A total of 90% of patients with lupus are women, and women of color are two to three times more likely to develop lupus in their lifetime. 

“Based on socioeconomic statistics, lupus patients are in a demographic that is commonly underserved, underfunded, and often overlooked. Finding appropriate local community resources for a patient who must choose between feeding her family or paying for transportation to multiple physician appointments is a common problem,” Ms. Costillo said.

Much of the assistance that became available during the COVID pandemic is starting to disappear. “With the rising costs of daily living, we are having to find creative and alternative ways to break down barriers and find support to fill those gaps,” she continued.

Getting insurance coverage of patients is another challenge. Many patients with lupus will be prescribed a treatment that insurance refuses to cover even after the physician disputes it.

Additionally, many patients with lupus are unable to work to support their family. A majority who apply for Social Security Disability Insurance are denied on their first and second attempts, “requiring multiple hearings and pages of documentation from their physicians,” Ms. Costillo said. 
 

Students Serve as Navigators

One inner-city program is seeking to increase access to healthcare services to patients with lupus and lupus nephritis in underserved communities. In 2021, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York City, in partnership with the Brooklyn Free Clinic and Brooklyn Health Disparities Center, launched a program to teach navigator skills to second-year medical students. 

The students assist patients at the Arthritis Clinic at University Hospital at Downstate. “Many of our patients have either low medical literacy or difficulty with English. Many of them are immigrants,” said Ellen M. Ginzler, MD, MPH, SUNY Downstate’s professor emerita and former vice-chair for research and rheumatology division chief. 

Dr. Ginzler sought out navigator candidates who showed a strong interest in working with underserved patients with complicated, severe disease who struggled with keeping appointments or adhering to medication regimens. The program also gave preference to students fluent in other languages such as Spanish. 

All these efforts have generated improvements in care.

Assessing the program’s effectiveness in a cross-sectional study, Dr. Ginzler and colleagues reported that 94% of navigators were able to schedule appointments and 87% assisted with prescriptions. Navigators also had high success rates in answering medical questions, getting in touch with a patient’s doctor, and reminding patients of medical appointments. 

Medical student Jeremy Wilson, a coauthor of the study, served as a navigator for a woman with lupus and scleroderma for many years, along with other comorbidities.

Mr. Wilson went above and beyond for this patient, helping to secure social services supports that included accompanying her to clinic visits and serving as her advocate. “She found an enormous difference in how she was treated when she went to these clinics because the doctors in those clinics took her much more seriously,” Dr. Ginzler said. Mr. Wilson ran interference to secure clinic appointments and worked with the patient’s rheumatology fellow in the clinic to get approval for medications. 

Mr. Wilson and the patient formed a great bond. “It not only helped the patient, but it helped Jeremy tremendously in terms of how he felt about his medical career,” Dr. Ginzler said. 

The program has since expanded to include patients with other rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis, and also offers navigator services in dermatology. 

A total of 21 students to date have completed the second year of the program. “We’ve just selected eight more,” Dr. Ginzler said. Some of the students continue to do the program in their third or even fourth year as they’re applying for residencies. 

A student-run, unpublished survey of nine students in the SUNY program found that all nine reported high confidence in identifying social factors that impact patient health and well-being, compared with four who reported high confidence prior to starting the program. “Additionally, students reported increased confidence in providing comprehensive care in rheumatology and dermatology, and interdisciplinary collaboration,” study author Alejandra K. Moncayo, MPH, and colleagues wrote. 
 

When Navigators Go Virtual

Remission Medical offers its navigator service through its own standalone virtual clinic. 

Pain associated with rheumatologic conditions increases the urgency to see a doctor. The goal of the virtual RemissionNavigator program is to meet rheumatology patients where they live, to bridge care gaps and reduce wait times, said Mr. Wehman.

RemissionNavigator accomplishes this through video visits and unlimited texting to its network of board-certified rheumatologists or rheumatology-focused advanced practice providers. Experts can answer questions about why labs are ordered, why a patient may have received a certain diagnosis, or provide detailed explanations of a rheumatic condition. 

“There are instances where improvement for the patient means waiting a couple days for us versus 45 days for their brick-and-mortar choice,” Mr. Wehman said. 

The program currently has 36 subscribers to Remission’s services, which include navigation. “We have 15 providers in a blend of employed and contracted relationships with Remission,” Mr. Wehman said. 

Even in its infancy, the navigator program has produced some success stories. “We had a patient tell us that thanks to us, he was seen faster, found relief immediately through our diagnosis and prescription of methotrexate, felt better at work, lost weight, and was happier in general,” Mr. Wehman said. 

Another patient was making monthly, 90-minute trips to Richmond for infusion services. Through the virtual program’s assistance, she is now receiving care from home and can get her monthly infusions at a local clinic. 

Ultimately, the goal is to help rheumatology move into an era of value-based care where the transition from fee-for-service to per patient will enable optimized care models and better accessibility, Mr. Wehman said. “It will not happen overnight, but every day we work toward this future.”
 

VA Targets Rheumatology Care

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has also explored the use of navigator services in rheumatology, including virtual services. 

VA uses an integrated, interdisciplinary model that manages each veteran’s individual healthcare needs through a coordinated effort among providers, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and other health professionals, according to VA press secretary Terrence Hayes.

Care coordination may include supporting scheduling appointments, managing chronic conditions, and coordinating care across different medical departments. “This coordination is particularly important in managing complex rheumatologic conditions, where multiple providers may be involved,” Mr. Hayes said.

Additionally, VA has launched a national telerheumatology initiative to improve access to rheumatology providers in rural areas. The initiative will assist veterans in understanding the telehealth system, navigating appointments, and ensuring they have the necessary technology for virtual consultations. 

“It will also facilitate communication between rheumatologists, primary care providers, and other specialists, ensuring that all team members are aligned in their approach to the veteran’s care,” Mr. Hayes said.
 

Who Will Take Advantage of New Codes? 

Currently, Remission Medical operates on a cash-pay model, but the company intends to transition to insurance-based coverage in 2025. 

Remission Medical also partners directly with preexisting healthcare systems and clinics such as Sentara Health and OrthoVirginia, where a PIN program, powered by Remission Medical’s virtual rheumatology network, may be explored as well. 

The company offers its partners synchronous virtual visits and e-consults. It’s likely that these larger organizations will explore coverage for navigator services for Medicare and private insurance. “We can be there to support them as they decide to implement this,” Mr. Wehman said.

Taking advantage of CMS’s navigator PIN codes is an eventual goal. Remission Medical has not submitted the codes yet, “but we do intend to as we continue to grow our membership count,” Mr. Wehman said. “We hope to provide coverage for most of the US and submit the codes to reimbursement by early to mid-2025.” 

In terms of reimbursement, the VA operates under a different payment model than Medicare or private insurance, focusing on providing integrated care within the VA system rather than reimbursing for specific services such as patient navigation.

While the SUNY clinic takes care of Medicare patients, it’s unlikely that the new CMS codes for navigators would apply to medical students. Students get paid a monthly stipend for doing navigator work. “There’s a policy about what students can get paid, and how many hours they can work,” Dr. Ginzler clarified. 

The SUNY Downstate and Lupus Foundation navigator programs rely on grants to sustain their services. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals has funded both programs, and the SUNY program received an additional grant from Janssen to expand its offerings. 

Because it’s grant funded, the navigator position at the Lupus Foundation does not bill patient insurance, Ms. Costillo explained. 
 

Navigator Work Requires Training

Before they start working with patients, navigators often go through a vetting or training process. At Remission Medical, a clinical leadership team does a synchronous interview, background check, and CV review of its potential navigators. 

Even before she became a navigator, Ms. Costillo had a strong baseline education in this work. She has a bachelor’s degree in social work and 15 years of experience in social services working with disabled, vulnerable, and underserved populations. Some of her fellow navigators at the Lupus Foundation of America also have degrees in social work. 

Ms. Costillo underwent training with the Patient-Centered Education & Research Institute to become a certified professional patient navigator. Her name is on the national registry. The curriculum covered various aspects of medical care such as patient and care team interactions and communications, health and clinical knowledge, patient care coordination and resources, and using evidence-based approaches. 

“For our lupus patients, it is essential that navigators understand the disease and the impact on patients and families, treatments available and those in the pipelines, and also the ins and outs of various insurance options,” Ms. Costillo said.

Mr. Wehman, Dr. Williams, and Ms. Costillo reported no disclosures. Dr. Ginzler has been a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.

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

When a large rheumatology clinic in Richmond, Virginia, heard that Medicare would be reimbursing patient navigators, they decided to launch their own virtual navigator program. 

“We read about it and felt like it was the perfect representation of what we were already trying to do,” said Blake Wehman, founder and CEO of Remission Medical, which offers virtual diagnosis and longitudinal care in rheumatology.

Mr. Wehman has plans to start submitting for these principal illness navigation (PIN) codes in 2025. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2024 began paying navigators who assist Medicare patients with high-risk conditions, which could include rheumatologic diseases. “The codes are not limited to a specific set of diagnoses; rather, the definition of a serious, high-risk condition is dependent on clinical judgment,” the agency clarified. 

CMS established this provision in the CY 2024 Physician Fee Schedule final rule. 

Reimbursing patient navigators is long overdue, noted Edith Williams, PhD, MS, director of the Center for Community Health and Prevention and founding director of the Office of Health Equity Research at the University of Rochester in New York. “It’s something our patients need. It’s something that the science is telling us can impact outcomes as an adjunct to clinical care,” she said. 

John Schlia

Dr. Williams said the new CMS codes “got our departments talking about what this policy is and how it would translate into patient care.”

The codes apply when navigators are assigned to support patients with high-risk conditions who need assistance connecting with clinical and other resources, including any unmet social determinants of health needs, or in diagnosis or treatment of their medical problems.

“Having a navigator by their side to help get through all the clinical and administrative challenges gives people an advocate and a partner who is with them and their families every step of the way to help make the journey easier,” said a CMS spokesperson. 

Not all navigator programs may qualify for the new codes. Some are supported by grants and don’t bill patient insurance. However, they all share a common goal: to guide patients through the healthcare continuum and assist with appointments and medication adherence. 
 

Identifying ‘Root Causes’ of Barriers

Navigators represent a wide variety of backgrounds, ranging from healthcare professionals to students or even patients themselves. They generally don’t provide medical advice. “However, we are responsible for making sure our patients and their families are educated and aware, then assist with guidance on their path,” said Katie Costillo, BSW, CPPN, patient navigator and program manager with the Lupus Foundation of America, Heartland Region.

“Training and experience in engaging and building rapport is essential to assisting patients overcome obstacles that limit their access to healthcare,” she said. Narrowing down with patients the root causes of their barriers and then identifying appropriate and available community resources is key. 

Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of adding a navigator to a rheumatology patient’s care plan. In one study, a group of Boston researchers determined that navigators played a useful role in reducing adherence barriers to oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The navigators uncovered several concerns among 107 rheumatology patients, including fear of adverse events and medication effectiveness. 

They also helped to facilitate patient-physician communication, developed strategies to improve medication adherence, and provided medication and diagnosis education. Patients reported satisfaction with the navigator experience.

A study Dr. Williams coauthored that examined behavioral interventions to support African American women with systemic lupus erythematosus found that patient navigator participants had superior coping scores, compared with those engaged in peer-to-peer methodology and patient support groups.

“We had a lot of success with the mentorship program, too,” Dr. Williams said. Navigator services, however, offer more one-on-one attention, “and it’s more tailored to what the person needs rather than the set curriculum that the mentors delivered to their mentees.”
 

Supporting Patients With Lupus

Ideally, navigators should be able to relate to patients and know what they’re going through, Dr. Williams said. This is someone whom the patient can trust and depend on. “That’s where the benefit of having someone who is also a patient lies because they’re ultimately relatable to other patients. But different institutions have taken different approaches to this.” 

Some programs focus on specific rheumatologic conditions. The Lupus Foundation of America, for example, established patient navigator programs to assist patients with lupus in four markets across the country. 

The Heartland patient navigator program is available for all patients with lupus within its region, which includes Kansas, Missouri, and central and southern Illinois. As a navigator, Ms. Costillo has been assisting patients since 2022. In 2023, she began meeting with patients at the Washington University Lupus Clinic (WULC) in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Navigators work directly with patients before and after their appointment to ensure follow-up and reduce missed appointments. “They help lupus patients connect with community services and overcoming barriers to access and care. The goal of this position is to improve overall disease management, which results in better health outcomes,” Ms. Costillo said. 

Since its inception, the patient navigator program at WULC has shown a decrease in patient no-call no-shows and an increase in requests to reschedule as opposed to not showing up for their scheduled appointment, based on history. 

Patients have reported fewer barriers to transportation and improvement in access to resources, support, and disease education. “Our patients have also stated [that] meeting with the navigator during their appointments has helped them to feel heard, understood, and supported,” Ms. Costillo said.
 

Navigator Work Is Not Without Challenges

A total of 90% of patients with lupus are women, and women of color are two to three times more likely to develop lupus in their lifetime. 

“Based on socioeconomic statistics, lupus patients are in a demographic that is commonly underserved, underfunded, and often overlooked. Finding appropriate local community resources for a patient who must choose between feeding her family or paying for transportation to multiple physician appointments is a common problem,” Ms. Costillo said.

Much of the assistance that became available during the COVID pandemic is starting to disappear. “With the rising costs of daily living, we are having to find creative and alternative ways to break down barriers and find support to fill those gaps,” she continued.

Getting insurance coverage of patients is another challenge. Many patients with lupus will be prescribed a treatment that insurance refuses to cover even after the physician disputes it.

Additionally, many patients with lupus are unable to work to support their family. A majority who apply for Social Security Disability Insurance are denied on their first and second attempts, “requiring multiple hearings and pages of documentation from their physicians,” Ms. Costillo said. 
 

Students Serve as Navigators

One inner-city program is seeking to increase access to healthcare services to patients with lupus and lupus nephritis in underserved communities. In 2021, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York City, in partnership with the Brooklyn Free Clinic and Brooklyn Health Disparities Center, launched a program to teach navigator skills to second-year medical students. 

The students assist patients at the Arthritis Clinic at University Hospital at Downstate. “Many of our patients have either low medical literacy or difficulty with English. Many of them are immigrants,” said Ellen M. Ginzler, MD, MPH, SUNY Downstate’s professor emerita and former vice-chair for research and rheumatology division chief. 

Dr. Ginzler sought out navigator candidates who showed a strong interest in working with underserved patients with complicated, severe disease who struggled with keeping appointments or adhering to medication regimens. The program also gave preference to students fluent in other languages such as Spanish. 

All these efforts have generated improvements in care.

Assessing the program’s effectiveness in a cross-sectional study, Dr. Ginzler and colleagues reported that 94% of navigators were able to schedule appointments and 87% assisted with prescriptions. Navigators also had high success rates in answering medical questions, getting in touch with a patient’s doctor, and reminding patients of medical appointments. 

Medical student Jeremy Wilson, a coauthor of the study, served as a navigator for a woman with lupus and scleroderma for many years, along with other comorbidities.

Mr. Wilson went above and beyond for this patient, helping to secure social services supports that included accompanying her to clinic visits and serving as her advocate. “She found an enormous difference in how she was treated when she went to these clinics because the doctors in those clinics took her much more seriously,” Dr. Ginzler said. Mr. Wilson ran interference to secure clinic appointments and worked with the patient’s rheumatology fellow in the clinic to get approval for medications. 

Mr. Wilson and the patient formed a great bond. “It not only helped the patient, but it helped Jeremy tremendously in terms of how he felt about his medical career,” Dr. Ginzler said. 

The program has since expanded to include patients with other rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis, and also offers navigator services in dermatology. 

A total of 21 students to date have completed the second year of the program. “We’ve just selected eight more,” Dr. Ginzler said. Some of the students continue to do the program in their third or even fourth year as they’re applying for residencies. 

A student-run, unpublished survey of nine students in the SUNY program found that all nine reported high confidence in identifying social factors that impact patient health and well-being, compared with four who reported high confidence prior to starting the program. “Additionally, students reported increased confidence in providing comprehensive care in rheumatology and dermatology, and interdisciplinary collaboration,” study author Alejandra K. Moncayo, MPH, and colleagues wrote. 
 

When Navigators Go Virtual

Remission Medical offers its navigator service through its own standalone virtual clinic. 

Pain associated with rheumatologic conditions increases the urgency to see a doctor. The goal of the virtual RemissionNavigator program is to meet rheumatology patients where they live, to bridge care gaps and reduce wait times, said Mr. Wehman.

RemissionNavigator accomplishes this through video visits and unlimited texting to its network of board-certified rheumatologists or rheumatology-focused advanced practice providers. Experts can answer questions about why labs are ordered, why a patient may have received a certain diagnosis, or provide detailed explanations of a rheumatic condition. 

“There are instances where improvement for the patient means waiting a couple days for us versus 45 days for their brick-and-mortar choice,” Mr. Wehman said. 

The program currently has 36 subscribers to Remission’s services, which include navigation. “We have 15 providers in a blend of employed and contracted relationships with Remission,” Mr. Wehman said. 

Even in its infancy, the navigator program has produced some success stories. “We had a patient tell us that thanks to us, he was seen faster, found relief immediately through our diagnosis and prescription of methotrexate, felt better at work, lost weight, and was happier in general,” Mr. Wehman said. 

Another patient was making monthly, 90-minute trips to Richmond for infusion services. Through the virtual program’s assistance, she is now receiving care from home and can get her monthly infusions at a local clinic. 

Ultimately, the goal is to help rheumatology move into an era of value-based care where the transition from fee-for-service to per patient will enable optimized care models and better accessibility, Mr. Wehman said. “It will not happen overnight, but every day we work toward this future.”
 

VA Targets Rheumatology Care

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has also explored the use of navigator services in rheumatology, including virtual services. 

VA uses an integrated, interdisciplinary model that manages each veteran’s individual healthcare needs through a coordinated effort among providers, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and other health professionals, according to VA press secretary Terrence Hayes.

Care coordination may include supporting scheduling appointments, managing chronic conditions, and coordinating care across different medical departments. “This coordination is particularly important in managing complex rheumatologic conditions, where multiple providers may be involved,” Mr. Hayes said.

Additionally, VA has launched a national telerheumatology initiative to improve access to rheumatology providers in rural areas. The initiative will assist veterans in understanding the telehealth system, navigating appointments, and ensuring they have the necessary technology for virtual consultations. 

“It will also facilitate communication between rheumatologists, primary care providers, and other specialists, ensuring that all team members are aligned in their approach to the veteran’s care,” Mr. Hayes said.
 

Who Will Take Advantage of New Codes? 

Currently, Remission Medical operates on a cash-pay model, but the company intends to transition to insurance-based coverage in 2025. 

Remission Medical also partners directly with preexisting healthcare systems and clinics such as Sentara Health and OrthoVirginia, where a PIN program, powered by Remission Medical’s virtual rheumatology network, may be explored as well. 

The company offers its partners synchronous virtual visits and e-consults. It’s likely that these larger organizations will explore coverage for navigator services for Medicare and private insurance. “We can be there to support them as they decide to implement this,” Mr. Wehman said.

Taking advantage of CMS’s navigator PIN codes is an eventual goal. Remission Medical has not submitted the codes yet, “but we do intend to as we continue to grow our membership count,” Mr. Wehman said. “We hope to provide coverage for most of the US and submit the codes to reimbursement by early to mid-2025.” 

In terms of reimbursement, the VA operates under a different payment model than Medicare or private insurance, focusing on providing integrated care within the VA system rather than reimbursing for specific services such as patient navigation.

While the SUNY clinic takes care of Medicare patients, it’s unlikely that the new CMS codes for navigators would apply to medical students. Students get paid a monthly stipend for doing navigator work. “There’s a policy about what students can get paid, and how many hours they can work,” Dr. Ginzler clarified. 

The SUNY Downstate and Lupus Foundation navigator programs rely on grants to sustain their services. Aurinia Pharmaceuticals has funded both programs, and the SUNY program received an additional grant from Janssen to expand its offerings. 

Because it’s grant funded, the navigator position at the Lupus Foundation does not bill patient insurance, Ms. Costillo explained. 
 

Navigator Work Requires Training

Before they start working with patients, navigators often go through a vetting or training process. At Remission Medical, a clinical leadership team does a synchronous interview, background check, and CV review of its potential navigators. 

Even before she became a navigator, Ms. Costillo had a strong baseline education in this work. She has a bachelor’s degree in social work and 15 years of experience in social services working with disabled, vulnerable, and underserved populations. Some of her fellow navigators at the Lupus Foundation of America also have degrees in social work. 

Ms. Costillo underwent training with the Patient-Centered Education & Research Institute to become a certified professional patient navigator. Her name is on the national registry. The curriculum covered various aspects of medical care such as patient and care team interactions and communications, health and clinical knowledge, patient care coordination and resources, and using evidence-based approaches. 

“For our lupus patients, it is essential that navigators understand the disease and the impact on patients and families, treatments available and those in the pipelines, and also the ins and outs of various insurance options,” Ms. Costillo said.

Mr. Wehman, Dr. Williams, and Ms. Costillo reported no disclosures. Dr. Ginzler has been a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted a second-line indication to amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Amivantamab with carboplatin and pemetrexed is now indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations whose disease has progressed on or after treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

The FDA has already approved first-line use of amivantamab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as reported by Medscape Medical News. 

The second-line approval for amivantamab plus chemotherapy “may address the most common mechanisms of treatment resistance to third-generation EGFR TKIs, such as osimertinib, in the first line,” Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, oncologist, Cancer Care Centers of Brevard in Florida, said in a company news release.

“This multitargeted combination extended progression-free survival (PFS) and improved overall response compared to chemotherapy alone, offering an important and effective new second-line option for patients,” Dr. Dietrich added. 

The second-line indication is supported by the phase 3 MARIPOSA-2 study, which included 657 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations and disease progression on or after receiving osimertinib.

The study demonstrated a 52% reduced risk of disease progression or death when amivantamab was added to carboplatin and pemetrexed (hazard ratio, 0.48). 

Median PFS was 6.3 months with amivantamab vs 4.2 months with chemotherapy alone. The confirmed objective response rate was 53% in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy group vs 29% in the chemotherapy only group. 

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were rash, infusion-related reactions, fatigue, nail toxicity, nausea, constipation, edema, stomatitis, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and COVID-19 infection.

The company noted that amivantamab in combination with chemotherapy is the only category 1 treatment option in National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on osimertinib and who are symptomatic with multiple lesions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted a second-line indication to amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Amivantamab with carboplatin and pemetrexed is now indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations whose disease has progressed on or after treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

The FDA has already approved first-line use of amivantamab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as reported by Medscape Medical News. 

The second-line approval for amivantamab plus chemotherapy “may address the most common mechanisms of treatment resistance to third-generation EGFR TKIs, such as osimertinib, in the first line,” Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, oncologist, Cancer Care Centers of Brevard in Florida, said in a company news release.

“This multitargeted combination extended progression-free survival (PFS) and improved overall response compared to chemotherapy alone, offering an important and effective new second-line option for patients,” Dr. Dietrich added. 

The second-line indication is supported by the phase 3 MARIPOSA-2 study, which included 657 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations and disease progression on or after receiving osimertinib.

The study demonstrated a 52% reduced risk of disease progression or death when amivantamab was added to carboplatin and pemetrexed (hazard ratio, 0.48). 

Median PFS was 6.3 months with amivantamab vs 4.2 months with chemotherapy alone. The confirmed objective response rate was 53% in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy group vs 29% in the chemotherapy only group. 

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were rash, infusion-related reactions, fatigue, nail toxicity, nausea, constipation, edema, stomatitis, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and COVID-19 infection.

The company noted that amivantamab in combination with chemotherapy is the only category 1 treatment option in National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on osimertinib and who are symptomatic with multiple lesions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted a second-line indication to amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Amivantamab with carboplatin and pemetrexed is now indicated for adults with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations whose disease has progressed on or after treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).

The FDA has already approved first-line use of amivantamab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as reported by Medscape Medical News. 

The second-line approval for amivantamab plus chemotherapy “may address the most common mechanisms of treatment resistance to third-generation EGFR TKIs, such as osimertinib, in the first line,” Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, oncologist, Cancer Care Centers of Brevard in Florida, said in a company news release.

“This multitargeted combination extended progression-free survival (PFS) and improved overall response compared to chemotherapy alone, offering an important and effective new second-line option for patients,” Dr. Dietrich added. 

The second-line indication is supported by the phase 3 MARIPOSA-2 study, which included 657 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations and disease progression on or after receiving osimertinib.

The study demonstrated a 52% reduced risk of disease progression or death when amivantamab was added to carboplatin and pemetrexed (hazard ratio, 0.48). 

Median PFS was 6.3 months with amivantamab vs 4.2 months with chemotherapy alone. The confirmed objective response rate was 53% in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy group vs 29% in the chemotherapy only group. 

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were rash, infusion-related reactions, fatigue, nail toxicity, nausea, constipation, edema, stomatitis, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, vomiting, and COVID-19 infection.

The company noted that amivantamab in combination with chemotherapy is the only category 1 treatment option in National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on osimertinib and who are symptomatic with multiple lesions.

A version of this article 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.

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.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

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

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

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

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

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

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As quality indicators and benchmarks for colonoscopy increase in coming years, gastroenterologists must think about ways to improve performance across the procedure continuum.

According to several experts who spoke at the American Gastroenterological Association’s Postgraduate Course this spring, which was offered at Digestive Disease Week (DDW), gastroenterologists can take these five steps to improve their performance: Addressing poor bowel prep, improving polyp detection, following the best intervals for polyp surveillance, reducing the environmental impact of gastrointestinal (GI) practice, and implementing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for efficiency and quality.

Addressing Poor Prep

To improve bowel preparation rates, clinicians may consider identifying those at high risk for inadequate prep, which could include known risk factors such as age, body mass index, inpatient status, constipation, tobacco use, and hypertension. However, other variables tend to serve as bigger predictors of inadequate prep, such as the patient’s status regarding cirrhosis, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, diabetes, opioid use, gastroparesis, tricyclics, and colorectal surgery.

Although several prediction models are based on some of these factors — looking at comorbidities, antidepressant use, constipation, and prior abdominal or pelvic surgery — the data don’t indicate whether knowing about or addressing these risks actually leads to better bowel prep, said Brian Jacobson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of program development for gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Instead, the biggest return-on-investment option is to maximize prep for all patients, he said, especially since every patient has at least some risk of poor prep, either due to the required diet changes, medication considerations, or purgative solution and timing.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Improving Polyp Detection

Adenoma detection rates (ADR) can be highly variable due to different techniques, technical skills, pattern recognition, interpretation, and experience. New adjunct and AI-based tools can help improve ADR, especially if clinicians want to improve, receive training, and use best-practice techniques.

“In colonoscopy, it’s tricky because it’s not just a blood test or an x-ray. There’s really a lot of technique involved, both cognitive awareness and pattern recognition, as well as our technical skills,” said Tonya Kaltenbach, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco and director of advanced endoscopy at the San Francisco VA Health Care System in San Francisco.

For instance, multiple tools and techniques may be needed in real time to interpret a lesion, such as washing, retroflexing, and using better lighting, while paying attention to alerts and noting areas for further inspection and resection.

San Francisco VA Health Care System

Following Polyp Surveillance Intervals

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer’s recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy provide valuable information and rationale for how to determine surveillance intervals for patients. However, clinicians still may be unsure what to recommend for some patients — or tell them to come back too soon, leading to unnecessary colonoscopy. 

For instance, a 47-year-old woman who presents for her initial screening and has a single 6-mm polyp, which pathology returns as a single adenoma may be considered to be at average risk and suggested to return in 7-10 years. The guidelines seem more obvious for patients with one or two adenomas under 10 mm removed en bloc. 

However, once the case details shift into gray areas and include three or four adenomas between 10 and 20 mm, or piecemeal removal, clinicians may differ on their recommendations, said Rajesh N. Keswani, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of endoscopy for Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. At DDW 2024, Dr. Keswani presented several case examples, often finding various audience opinions.

Reducing Environmental Effects

In recent waste audits of endoscopy rooms, providers generate 1-3 kg of waste per procedure, which would fill 117 soccer fields to a depth of 1 m, based on 18 million procedures in the United States per year. This waste comes from procedure-related equipment, administration, medications, travel of patients and staff, and infrastructure with systems such as air conditioning. Taking steps toward a green practice can reduce waste and the carbon footprint of healthcare.

“When we think about improving colonoscopy performance, the goal is to prevent colon cancer death, but when we expand that, we have to apply sustainable practices as a domain of quality,” said Heiko Pohl, MD, professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire, and a gastroenterologist at White River Junction VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

The GI Multisociety Strategic Plan on Environmental Sustainability suggests a 5-year initiative to improve sustainability and reduce waste across seven domains — clinical setting, education, research, society efforts, intersociety efforts, industry, and advocacy.

AI for Quality And Efficiency

Moving forward, AI tools will likely become more popular in various parts of GI practice, by assisting with documentation, spotting polyps, tracking mucosal surfaces, providing optical histopathology, and supervising performance through high-quality feedback.

“Endoscopy has reached the limits of human visual capacity, where seeing more pixels won’t necessarily improve clinical diagnosis. What’s next for elevating the care of patients really is AI,” said Jason B. Samarasena, MD, professor of medicine and program director of the interventional endoscopy training program at the University of California Irvine in Irvine, California.

As practices adopt AI-based systems, however, clinicians should be cautious about a false sense of comfort or “alarm fatigue” if bounding boxes become distracting. Instead, new tools need to be adopted as a “physician-AI hybrid,” with the endoscopist in mind, particularly if helpful for performing a better exam by watching withdrawal time or endoscope slippage.

New York University

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two relatively simple interventions — addressing high blood pressure (BP) and smoking cessation — could make a huge difference for patients with rheumatic disease. Patients with autoimmune disease are up to three times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) than the general population. In addition to compounding CVD, smoking is tied to the development of certain autoimmune conditions, as well as worse outcomes. Christie Bartels, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, has focused her research on improving cardiac health in inflammatory diseases. This news organization spoke with Bartels about two short interventions she developed that tackle hypertension and smoking cessation during regular visits, each taking less than 3 minutes.

How Do These Programs Address Cardiac Disease Prevention?

The BP and Quit Connect programs help clinics systematically address the two most modifiable risk factors for CVD: high BP and smoking. There’s also evidence that addressing these two risk factors improves outcomes in rheumatic diseases. Hypertension predicts an increase in lupus damage. Particularly in lupus nephritis, hypertension will increase the risk for CVD and kidney failure. People who use tobacco have worse outcomes in diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and lupus, as well as more CVD, and antirheumatic drugs may not work as well.

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

In 90 seconds to 3 minutes, staff can do protocol-based care, which we’ve done across 20,000-plus visits. We showed we can improve population level rates of high BP and BP control, as well as increase smoking quitting rates across different patient settings.
 

What Is the Quit Connect Program?

The Quit Connect program is a 10- to 90-second point of care intervention. During rooming, staff (medical assistants and nurses) ask patients: “A) Do you smoke? and B) Have you thought about cutting back or quitting in the next 30 days?”

It turns out, when you ask the question that way, between a third and a half of people say that they’ve thought about cutting back or quitting. Then, we can get patients connected directly to Quitline, a free public service across all 50 states that smokers can use to get cessation support.

If patients are ready, we ask if we can arrange for them to receive a call from a Quitline coach about setting a quit date or receiving free nicotine replacement therapy. The beautiful thing is when that all happens, A) it’s free to the patient, and B) the results from the Quitline can be recorded right back to the electronic health record.

In our most recent publication in Arthritis Care & Research, we documented bringing Quit Connect to Grady Hospital in downtown Atlanta. It’s a safety net hospital, where 80% patients are Black and 70%-80% patients are on public insurance or uninsured. Using this protocol, we improved Quitline referrals 20-fold.
 

What Is the BP Connect Program?

At least half of the encounters in United States happen in specialty clinics. Unfortunately, when patients get their BP measured in a specialty clinic that’s not a cardiology or a vascular clinic, often, even if the pressure is high, the clinic doesn’t give patients feedback on that. The problem is because we haven’t said anything, that gives people the false reassurance that their BP is okay.

We’ve developed a 3-minute protocol to ask, advise, and connect. The idea is that if we measure a high BP, then we remeasure and confirm that it’s high. Then, we advise why it matters in rheumatic disease: Patients with rheumatic diseases are already at an increased risk for heart disease, and controlling BP can make a big difference. Then, we connect patients with high BP back to primary care.

Specifically, a SmartSet — an electronic medical record feature — prompts different actions based on confirmed high BP readings:

• If systolic BP ≥ 140-159, the SmartSet directs scheduling a visit to a nurse or primary care provider.
• If systolic BP ≥ 160-179, the next primary care visit anticipates the need to see a prescriber.
• If systolic BP ≥ 180, then the medical assistant or nurse at the visit is instructed to notify the provider who can arrange a provider-to-provider handoff for safety to exclude a hypertensive emergency.

That order goes to the scheduler to call primary care to coordinate follow-up. BP Connect doubled the likelihood of a guideline-recommended follow-up in primary care within 30 days. All patients benefited, and disparities decreased. BP Connect has had 1100 downloads, and both BP and Quit Connect programs are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Million Hearts.
 

How Do These Programs Affect Clinical Practice?

We developed these interventions with a health system engineer, and we time stamped everything. Part of the sustainability of this model is that it fits within a regular workflow. As a practicing rheumatologist, I understand that time is a precious commodity.

The interventions are in partnership with frontline staff. We’ve received feedback that they feel pride participating in these initiatives. They can say, because of me, 30 patients followed up last month for high BP, or 10 patients took a referral to the Quitline last year. We celebrate these accomplishments with the staff.
 

What Are the Next Steps for These Programs?

Public-facing toolkits for both BP and Quit Connect programs are available online. We have implemented [these programs] in a rural setting, in an urban setting, in Milwaukee and in Atlanta, and we are looking in the future to do a larger, multistate implementation study. If folks are interested, we’d love to partner with them to look at disseminating this further.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two relatively simple interventions — addressing high blood pressure (BP) and smoking cessation — could make a huge difference for patients with rheumatic disease. Patients with autoimmune disease are up to three times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) than the general population. In addition to compounding CVD, smoking is tied to the development of certain autoimmune conditions, as well as worse outcomes. Christie Bartels, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, has focused her research on improving cardiac health in inflammatory diseases. This news organization spoke with Bartels about two short interventions she developed that tackle hypertension and smoking cessation during regular visits, each taking less than 3 minutes.

How Do These Programs Address Cardiac Disease Prevention?

The BP and Quit Connect programs help clinics systematically address the two most modifiable risk factors for CVD: high BP and smoking. There’s also evidence that addressing these two risk factors improves outcomes in rheumatic diseases. Hypertension predicts an increase in lupus damage. Particularly in lupus nephritis, hypertension will increase the risk for CVD and kidney failure. People who use tobacco have worse outcomes in diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and lupus, as well as more CVD, and antirheumatic drugs may not work as well.

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

In 90 seconds to 3 minutes, staff can do protocol-based care, which we’ve done across 20,000-plus visits. We showed we can improve population level rates of high BP and BP control, as well as increase smoking quitting rates across different patient settings.
 

What Is the Quit Connect Program?

The Quit Connect program is a 10- to 90-second point of care intervention. During rooming, staff (medical assistants and nurses) ask patients: “A) Do you smoke? and B) Have you thought about cutting back or quitting in the next 30 days?”

It turns out, when you ask the question that way, between a third and a half of people say that they’ve thought about cutting back or quitting. Then, we can get patients connected directly to Quitline, a free public service across all 50 states that smokers can use to get cessation support.

If patients are ready, we ask if we can arrange for them to receive a call from a Quitline coach about setting a quit date or receiving free nicotine replacement therapy. The beautiful thing is when that all happens, A) it’s free to the patient, and B) the results from the Quitline can be recorded right back to the electronic health record.

In our most recent publication in Arthritis Care & Research, we documented bringing Quit Connect to Grady Hospital in downtown Atlanta. It’s a safety net hospital, where 80% patients are Black and 70%-80% patients are on public insurance or uninsured. Using this protocol, we improved Quitline referrals 20-fold.
 

What Is the BP Connect Program?

At least half of the encounters in United States happen in specialty clinics. Unfortunately, when patients get their BP measured in a specialty clinic that’s not a cardiology or a vascular clinic, often, even if the pressure is high, the clinic doesn’t give patients feedback on that. The problem is because we haven’t said anything, that gives people the false reassurance that their BP is okay.

We’ve developed a 3-minute protocol to ask, advise, and connect. The idea is that if we measure a high BP, then we remeasure and confirm that it’s high. Then, we advise why it matters in rheumatic disease: Patients with rheumatic diseases are already at an increased risk for heart disease, and controlling BP can make a big difference. Then, we connect patients with high BP back to primary care.

Specifically, a SmartSet — an electronic medical record feature — prompts different actions based on confirmed high BP readings:

• If systolic BP ≥ 140-159, the SmartSet directs scheduling a visit to a nurse or primary care provider.
• If systolic BP ≥ 160-179, the next primary care visit anticipates the need to see a prescriber.
• If systolic BP ≥ 180, then the medical assistant or nurse at the visit is instructed to notify the provider who can arrange a provider-to-provider handoff for safety to exclude a hypertensive emergency.

That order goes to the scheduler to call primary care to coordinate follow-up. BP Connect doubled the likelihood of a guideline-recommended follow-up in primary care within 30 days. All patients benefited, and disparities decreased. BP Connect has had 1100 downloads, and both BP and Quit Connect programs are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Million Hearts.
 

How Do These Programs Affect Clinical Practice?

We developed these interventions with a health system engineer, and we time stamped everything. Part of the sustainability of this model is that it fits within a regular workflow. As a practicing rheumatologist, I understand that time is a precious commodity.

The interventions are in partnership with frontline staff. We’ve received feedback that they feel pride participating in these initiatives. They can say, because of me, 30 patients followed up last month for high BP, or 10 patients took a referral to the Quitline last year. We celebrate these accomplishments with the staff.
 

What Are the Next Steps for These Programs?

Public-facing toolkits for both BP and Quit Connect programs are available online. We have implemented [these programs] in a rural setting, in an urban setting, in Milwaukee and in Atlanta, and we are looking in the future to do a larger, multistate implementation study. If folks are interested, we’d love to partner with them to look at disseminating this further.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two relatively simple interventions — addressing high blood pressure (BP) and smoking cessation — could make a huge difference for patients with rheumatic disease. Patients with autoimmune disease are up to three times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) than the general population. In addition to compounding CVD, smoking is tied to the development of certain autoimmune conditions, as well as worse outcomes. Christie Bartels, MD, chief of the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, has focused her research on improving cardiac health in inflammatory diseases. This news organization spoke with Bartels about two short interventions she developed that tackle hypertension and smoking cessation during regular visits, each taking less than 3 minutes.

How Do These Programs Address Cardiac Disease Prevention?

The BP and Quit Connect programs help clinics systematically address the two most modifiable risk factors for CVD: high BP and smoking. There’s also evidence that addressing these two risk factors improves outcomes in rheumatic diseases. Hypertension predicts an increase in lupus damage. Particularly in lupus nephritis, hypertension will increase the risk for CVD and kidney failure. People who use tobacco have worse outcomes in diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and lupus, as well as more CVD, and antirheumatic drugs may not work as well.

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health

In 90 seconds to 3 minutes, staff can do protocol-based care, which we’ve done across 20,000-plus visits. We showed we can improve population level rates of high BP and BP control, as well as increase smoking quitting rates across different patient settings.
 

What Is the Quit Connect Program?

The Quit Connect program is a 10- to 90-second point of care intervention. During rooming, staff (medical assistants and nurses) ask patients: “A) Do you smoke? and B) Have you thought about cutting back or quitting in the next 30 days?”

It turns out, when you ask the question that way, between a third and a half of people say that they’ve thought about cutting back or quitting. Then, we can get patients connected directly to Quitline, a free public service across all 50 states that smokers can use to get cessation support.

If patients are ready, we ask if we can arrange for them to receive a call from a Quitline coach about setting a quit date or receiving free nicotine replacement therapy. The beautiful thing is when that all happens, A) it’s free to the patient, and B) the results from the Quitline can be recorded right back to the electronic health record.

In our most recent publication in Arthritis Care & Research, we documented bringing Quit Connect to Grady Hospital in downtown Atlanta. It’s a safety net hospital, where 80% patients are Black and 70%-80% patients are on public insurance or uninsured. Using this protocol, we improved Quitline referrals 20-fold.
 

What Is the BP Connect Program?

At least half of the encounters in United States happen in specialty clinics. Unfortunately, when patients get their BP measured in a specialty clinic that’s not a cardiology or a vascular clinic, often, even if the pressure is high, the clinic doesn’t give patients feedback on that. The problem is because we haven’t said anything, that gives people the false reassurance that their BP is okay.

We’ve developed a 3-minute protocol to ask, advise, and connect. The idea is that if we measure a high BP, then we remeasure and confirm that it’s high. Then, we advise why it matters in rheumatic disease: Patients with rheumatic diseases are already at an increased risk for heart disease, and controlling BP can make a big difference. Then, we connect patients with high BP back to primary care.

Specifically, a SmartSet — an electronic medical record feature — prompts different actions based on confirmed high BP readings:

• If systolic BP ≥ 140-159, the SmartSet directs scheduling a visit to a nurse or primary care provider.
• If systolic BP ≥ 160-179, the next primary care visit anticipates the need to see a prescriber.
• If systolic BP ≥ 180, then the medical assistant or nurse at the visit is instructed to notify the provider who can arrange a provider-to-provider handoff for safety to exclude a hypertensive emergency.

That order goes to the scheduler to call primary care to coordinate follow-up. BP Connect doubled the likelihood of a guideline-recommended follow-up in primary care within 30 days. All patients benefited, and disparities decreased. BP Connect has had 1100 downloads, and both BP and Quit Connect programs are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Million Hearts.
 

How Do These Programs Affect Clinical Practice?

We developed these interventions with a health system engineer, and we time stamped everything. Part of the sustainability of this model is that it fits within a regular workflow. As a practicing rheumatologist, I understand that time is a precious commodity.

The interventions are in partnership with frontline staff. We’ve received feedback that they feel pride participating in these initiatives. They can say, because of me, 30 patients followed up last month for high BP, or 10 patients took a referral to the Quitline last year. We celebrate these accomplishments with the staff.
 

What Are the Next Steps for These Programs?

Public-facing toolkits for both BP and Quit Connect programs are available online. We have implemented [these programs] in a rural setting, in an urban setting, in Milwaukee and in Atlanta, and we are looking in the future to do a larger, multistate implementation study. If folks are interested, we’d love to partner with them to look at disseminating this further.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.

In a groundbreaking procedure, a team of surgeons from New York University Langone Health successfully performed the first combined face and eye transplant on a patient with extensive craniofacial tissue loss after an electrical accident.

The highly complex surgery lasted for 21 hours and involved more than 140 surgeons, nurses, and other healthcare professionals under the leadership of Eduardo D. Rodriguez. MD. It not only restored the patient’s facial features, but also integrated a functional eyeball, potentially setting a new standard for future treatments in similar cases.

The transplant took place in May 2023, and the case report was published on September 5 this year in JAMA.

The 46-year-old man lost a large part of his craniofacial tissue and his left eyeball. The approach was highly specialized. Advanced microsurgical techniques such as anastomoses of microscopic vessels and delicate suturing techniques were crucial for the transplant’s success.

Moreover, customized surgical devices, specific implants, and tissue manipulation tools were developed specifically for this case, thus ensuring the viability of the transplant and adequate perfusion of the transplanted ocular tissue.

The initial results are encouraging. Retinal arterial perfusion has been maintained, and retinal architecture has been preserved, as demonstrated by optical coherence tomography. Electroretinography confirmed retinal responses to light, suggesting that the transplanted eye may eventually contribute to the patient’s visual perception. These results are comparable to those of previous facial tissue transplants, but with the significant addition of ocular functionality, which is a notable advance.

“The successful revascularization of the transplanted eye achieved in this study may serve as a step toward the goal of globe transplant for restoration of vision,” wrote the authors.

The complexity of the combined transplant required a deep understanding of facial and ocular anatomy, as well as tissue preservation techniques. The surgical team reported significant challenges, including the need to align delicate anatomical structures and ensure immunological compatibility between the donor and recipient. Meticulous planning from donor selection to postoperative follow-up was considered essential to maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the risk for allograft rejection.

The patient will now be continuously monitored and receive treatment with immunosuppressants such as tacrolimus and prednisone, adjusted according to his response to the transplant. According to the researchers, further studies will be needed to assess the long-term functionality of the transplanted eye and its integration with the central nervous system.

Despite being the fifth facial transplant surgery performed under Dr. Rodriguez’s leadership, this is the first record of a whole-eye transplant. “The mere fact that we have successfully performed the first whole-eye transplant along with a face transplant is a tremendous achievement that many believed to be impossible,” the doctor said in a statement. “We have taken a giant step forward and paved the way for the next chapter in vision restoration.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs (Tecentriq Hybreza, Genentech) as a subcutaneous injection in adults, covering all approved indications of the intravenous (IV) formulation.

Approved indications include non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Specific indications are available with the full prescribing information at Drugs@FDA.

This is the first programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor to gain approval for subcutaneous administration.

“This approval represents a significant option to improve the patient experience,” Ann Fish-Steagall, RN, Senior Vice President of Patient Services at the LUNGevity Foundation stated in a Genentech press release.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs was evaluated in the open-label, randomized IMscin001 trial of 371 adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were not previously exposed to cancer immunotherapy and who had disease progression following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous or IV administration until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Atezolizumab exposure, the primary outcome measure of the study, met the lower limit of geometric mean ratio above the prespecified threshold of 0.8 (cycle 1C trough, 1.05; area under the curve for days 0-21, 0.87).

No notable differences were observed in overall response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two formulations, according to the FDA approval notice.

The confirmed overall response rate was 9% in the subcutaneous arm and 8% intravenous arm.

Adverse events of any grade occurring in at least 10% of patients were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cough, dyspnea, and decreased appetite.

The recommended dose for subcutaneous injection is one 15 mL injection, which contains 1875 mg of atezolizumab and 30,000 units of hyaluronidase.

Injections should be administered in the thigh over approximately 7 minutes every 3 weeks. By contrast, IV administration generally takes 30-60 minutes.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs (Tecentriq Hybreza, Genentech) as a subcutaneous injection in adults, covering all approved indications of the intravenous (IV) formulation.

Approved indications include non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Specific indications are available with the full prescribing information at Drugs@FDA.

This is the first programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor to gain approval for subcutaneous administration.

“This approval represents a significant option to improve the patient experience,” Ann Fish-Steagall, RN, Senior Vice President of Patient Services at the LUNGevity Foundation stated in a Genentech press release.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs was evaluated in the open-label, randomized IMscin001 trial of 371 adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were not previously exposed to cancer immunotherapy and who had disease progression following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous or IV administration until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Atezolizumab exposure, the primary outcome measure of the study, met the lower limit of geometric mean ratio above the prespecified threshold of 0.8 (cycle 1C trough, 1.05; area under the curve for days 0-21, 0.87).

No notable differences were observed in overall response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two formulations, according to the FDA approval notice.

The confirmed overall response rate was 9% in the subcutaneous arm and 8% intravenous arm.

Adverse events of any grade occurring in at least 10% of patients were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cough, dyspnea, and decreased appetite.

The recommended dose for subcutaneous injection is one 15 mL injection, which contains 1875 mg of atezolizumab and 30,000 units of hyaluronidase.

Injections should be administered in the thigh over approximately 7 minutes every 3 weeks. By contrast, IV administration generally takes 30-60 minutes.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs (Tecentriq Hybreza, Genentech) as a subcutaneous injection in adults, covering all approved indications of the intravenous (IV) formulation.

Approved indications include non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Specific indications are available with the full prescribing information at Drugs@FDA.

This is the first programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor to gain approval for subcutaneous administration.

“This approval represents a significant option to improve the patient experience,” Ann Fish-Steagall, RN, Senior Vice President of Patient Services at the LUNGevity Foundation stated in a Genentech press release.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs was evaluated in the open-label, randomized IMscin001 trial of 371 adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were not previously exposed to cancer immunotherapy and who had disease progression following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous or IV administration until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Atezolizumab exposure, the primary outcome measure of the study, met the lower limit of geometric mean ratio above the prespecified threshold of 0.8 (cycle 1C trough, 1.05; area under the curve for days 0-21, 0.87).

No notable differences were observed in overall response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two formulations, according to the FDA approval notice.

The confirmed overall response rate was 9% in the subcutaneous arm and 8% intravenous arm.

Adverse events of any grade occurring in at least 10% of patients were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cough, dyspnea, and decreased appetite.

The recommended dose for subcutaneous injection is one 15 mL injection, which contains 1875 mg of atezolizumab and 30,000 units of hyaluronidase.

Injections should be administered in the thigh over approximately 7 minutes every 3 weeks. By contrast, IV administration generally takes 30-60 minutes.

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

US suicide rates have reached alarming levels, with data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing a 37% increase from 2000 to 2022. Nearly 49,000 people died by suicide in 2022 alone, translating to one death every 11 minutes. 

The increase in suicide rates has prompted calls for expansion of universal suicide screening, in which all individuals in medical or mental health care settings are screened for suicide risk, regardless of the purpose for their visit. But the psychiatric field is split on the issue, with some experts citing false positives and a lack of mental health care resources for those deemed at risk.

In 2022, when the US Preventative Services Task Force released its recommendations on suicide prevention, first in children and adolescents, and then in adults, the authors said there was insufficient evidence to support universal suicide screening. 

Proponents of the practice pushed back on that finding, arguing that universal suicide screening could help identify those at high risk who might otherwise go undiagnosed, leading to earlier, potentially lifesaving, intervention.

So, what is the case for — and against — universal screening?
 

Sounding an Alert

The introduction of universal screening was driven by a confluence of factors that began with a 1999 report by then-US Surgeon General David Satcher, MD. This was followed by a report in 2016 from the Joint Commission on Detecting and Treating Suicidal Ideation that called for healthcare organizations to improve detection and treatment of suicidal ideation in all healthcare care settings. 

Data from the alert showed that a significant number of people who died by suicide had a healthcare visit before their death. Half had seen a clinician a month before their death; nearly 30% had a medical visit just the week before — all with no detection of increased suicide risk. 

It was that sort of finding that led Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas to become the first US hospital to implement universal suicide screening. Since the program launched in 2015, the system has screened more than 4.3 million patients in its emergency department, inpatient units, and 20 primary care clinics.

“Since the program began, we’ve completed between 40,000 to 50,000 screenings per month,” said Kimberly Roaten, PhD, associate chief quality and safety officer for behavioral health at Parkland Health. 

Clinicians at Parkland use the five-item Ask Suicide-Screening Questions to assess suicidal intent, a commonly used tool that was originally developed for use in pediatric emergency rooms (ERs). The tool, which takes about 20 seconds to administer, has since been validated in both children and adults. 

Based on a patient’s response, a clinical decision support system integrated into the electronic health record classifies suicide risk as none, moderate, or high.

Patients identified as moderate risk are offered a more in-depth assessment with a mental health clinician, though participation is not mandatory, said Dr. Roaten. Those at high risk receive a more thorough evaluation.

The proportion of ER patients at Parkland who screen positive for any suicidal intent has consistently remained at about 7%, and at 2% in the primary care clinics, she said.

To better understand what the program may have had on suicide prevention, Dr. Roaten is leading a National Institute of Mental Health–funded study to link a decade of mortality data from the state of Texas to patient data from Parkland Health. Investigators will analyze information about patients identified at risk for suicide, those patients’ characteristics, and who dies by suicide.
 

Universal Screening Expands

Other health systems have adopted universal suicide screening including the Indian Health Service and the US Veterans Health Administration. Universal suicide screening is also in place in a growing number of primary care practices and hospitals throughout the United States and will be mandatory for patients aged 12 years and older in all acute care hospitals in California beginning in 2025.

There is also a push for universal screening to be coordinated through local, state, and federal government, nonprofit, and private sectors. The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention is charged with advancing the White House’s 2024 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, a 10-year plan to address gaps in suicide prevention in the United States. 

Sarah Brummett, JD, director of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s executive committee, said that universal suicide screening is part of the 2024 strategy. “We know there are barriers to universal screening, and so it’s important to recognize what they are so we can address them,” said Ms. Brummett. 

Barriers may include adequate staffing, or a system in place to triage patients who screen positive. 

At Parkland, cost and workload have been minimal, Dr. Roaten said. “We built a model that only dedicates our highest-value resources to the most at-risk patients.”

She also noted that relief may be on the horizon for health systems where cost is an obstacle to universal screening and subsequent intervention. “There are efforts at the federal level to increase funding for suicide assessment and crisis response,” she said. 
 

Pushback on Universal Screening

Universal suicide screening has its detractors, including critics who say expansion is unlikely to reduce suicide rates.

“The issue with suicidal ideation is that it is very dynamic. Suicidal ideation changes very quickly — sometimes within hours,” said Craig Bryan, PsyD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral health at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. 

Universal screening can also lead to false positives, where a patient who screens positive for suicidal ideation has no actual intention of attempting suicide, potentially creating unnecessary concern and burden on health care resources, Dr. Bryan noted. 

“What do you do with everyone who screens positive?” Dr. Bryan said. “I’ve spoken with leaders of many health systems in the United States, and there is pushback against universal screening because they don’t have enough mental health resources to handle all of the referrals.”

Suicide screening also doesn’t predict who will die by suicide, Dr. Bryan added. It only identifies those willing to disclose suicidal thoughts. There is a significant number of people without mental illness who may never seek medical care, so “the warning signs we’re teaching people to recognize — depression, anxiety, and substance abuse — might not be evident in these individuals,” he said.

“Life sideswipes them suddenly, and they go from 0 to 60 ... and they may have access to a highly lethal method [of suicide] which weaponizes that moment of despair,” said Dr. Bryan. No amount of screening could possibly predict those types of suicides, he added. 

Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, agrees with Dr. Bryan and noted there isn’t a strong correlation between suicidal ideation and death by suicide.

“Suicidal thoughts are very common, but suicide is a rare event,” he said. 

He cited a study that showed that two thirds of individuals who died by suicide had denied experiencing suicidal thoughts when asked, and half of them died within 2 days of this denial. Other research suggests that as many as 98% of people who express suicidal ideation do not die by suicide, Dr. Nestadt said. 
 

A Public Health Issue

If universal screening is not the answer to predicting and preventing suicide, what is? One way would be to approach suicide as a public health issue, Dr. Nestadt said. 

“How did we reduce the rate of motor vehicle deaths? We didn’t test each driver’s reaction time behind the wheel,” he said. “Instead, we passed seatbelt and airbag legislation, implemented federal speed limits, and as a result, the number of motor vehicle fatalities decreased.”

Dr. Nestadt is an advocate for stronger gun safety legislation, which has proven effective in reducing suicide rates. A study published this year showed that states with child access prevention laws, negligent storage laws, and mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases reported fewer suicide deaths than those without that legislation.

Other measures might be applied in cases of extreme individual suicide risk, including extreme risk protection orders, also known as “red flag” laws, he added. This type of legislation provides a pathway for law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others. 

“These have been shown to be very effective in saving lives,” Dr. Nestadt said.

Dr. Nestadt and others are also using machine learning models to predict suicide risk. Those identified as high-risk may be flagged on their electronic medical record. Ideally, when the algorithm becomes more accurate at predicting suicide, anyone treating this patient can then decide if action is needed, said Dr. Nestadt. 

In his work with suicidal military personnel, Dr. Bryan and his colleagues established a brief form of cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) to help participants challenge cognitive distortions and build coping strategies to deal with feel with intense feelings of distress. Data show that BCBT reduced suicide attempts among active-duty soldiers by 60% compared with standard mental health treatment. It has since been shown to work in civilians as well. 

Dr. Bryan is also researching fluctuations in the wish to live versus the wish to die relative to one another and mapping the trajectory of risk states along the way. 

The goal is that these and other suicide prevention strategies currently under study by his team and others will help stem the rise in suicide deaths.

“Overall, we need to train mental health providers to implement suicide prevention therapies and establish suicide risk programs,” Dr. Bryan said. “But until we build one of these suicide prevention interventions to scale, we’re putting the cart before the horse.”

Dr. Roaten, Ms. Brummett, Dr. Bryan, and Dr. Nestadt reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

US suicide rates have reached alarming levels, with data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing a 37% increase from 2000 to 2022. Nearly 49,000 people died by suicide in 2022 alone, translating to one death every 11 minutes. 

The increase in suicide rates has prompted calls for expansion of universal suicide screening, in which all individuals in medical or mental health care settings are screened for suicide risk, regardless of the purpose for their visit. But the psychiatric field is split on the issue, with some experts citing false positives and a lack of mental health care resources for those deemed at risk.

In 2022, when the US Preventative Services Task Force released its recommendations on suicide prevention, first in children and adolescents, and then in adults, the authors said there was insufficient evidence to support universal suicide screening. 

Proponents of the practice pushed back on that finding, arguing that universal suicide screening could help identify those at high risk who might otherwise go undiagnosed, leading to earlier, potentially lifesaving, intervention.

So, what is the case for — and against — universal screening?
 

Sounding an Alert

The introduction of universal screening was driven by a confluence of factors that began with a 1999 report by then-US Surgeon General David Satcher, MD. This was followed by a report in 2016 from the Joint Commission on Detecting and Treating Suicidal Ideation that called for healthcare organizations to improve detection and treatment of suicidal ideation in all healthcare care settings. 

Data from the alert showed that a significant number of people who died by suicide had a healthcare visit before their death. Half had seen a clinician a month before their death; nearly 30% had a medical visit just the week before — all with no detection of increased suicide risk. 

It was that sort of finding that led Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas to become the first US hospital to implement universal suicide screening. Since the program launched in 2015, the system has screened more than 4.3 million patients in its emergency department, inpatient units, and 20 primary care clinics.

“Since the program began, we’ve completed between 40,000 to 50,000 screenings per month,” said Kimberly Roaten, PhD, associate chief quality and safety officer for behavioral health at Parkland Health. 

Clinicians at Parkland use the five-item Ask Suicide-Screening Questions to assess suicidal intent, a commonly used tool that was originally developed for use in pediatric emergency rooms (ERs). The tool, which takes about 20 seconds to administer, has since been validated in both children and adults. 

Based on a patient’s response, a clinical decision support system integrated into the electronic health record classifies suicide risk as none, moderate, or high.

Patients identified as moderate risk are offered a more in-depth assessment with a mental health clinician, though participation is not mandatory, said Dr. Roaten. Those at high risk receive a more thorough evaluation.

The proportion of ER patients at Parkland who screen positive for any suicidal intent has consistently remained at about 7%, and at 2% in the primary care clinics, she said.

To better understand what the program may have had on suicide prevention, Dr. Roaten is leading a National Institute of Mental Health–funded study to link a decade of mortality data from the state of Texas to patient data from Parkland Health. Investigators will analyze information about patients identified at risk for suicide, those patients’ characteristics, and who dies by suicide.
 

Universal Screening Expands

Other health systems have adopted universal suicide screening including the Indian Health Service and the US Veterans Health Administration. Universal suicide screening is also in place in a growing number of primary care practices and hospitals throughout the United States and will be mandatory for patients aged 12 years and older in all acute care hospitals in California beginning in 2025.

There is also a push for universal screening to be coordinated through local, state, and federal government, nonprofit, and private sectors. The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention is charged with advancing the White House’s 2024 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, a 10-year plan to address gaps in suicide prevention in the United States. 

Sarah Brummett, JD, director of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s executive committee, said that universal suicide screening is part of the 2024 strategy. “We know there are barriers to universal screening, and so it’s important to recognize what they are so we can address them,” said Ms. Brummett. 

Barriers may include adequate staffing, or a system in place to triage patients who screen positive. 

At Parkland, cost and workload have been minimal, Dr. Roaten said. “We built a model that only dedicates our highest-value resources to the most at-risk patients.”

She also noted that relief may be on the horizon for health systems where cost is an obstacle to universal screening and subsequent intervention. “There are efforts at the federal level to increase funding for suicide assessment and crisis response,” she said. 
 

Pushback on Universal Screening

Universal suicide screening has its detractors, including critics who say expansion is unlikely to reduce suicide rates.

“The issue with suicidal ideation is that it is very dynamic. Suicidal ideation changes very quickly — sometimes within hours,” said Craig Bryan, PsyD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral health at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. 

Universal screening can also lead to false positives, where a patient who screens positive for suicidal ideation has no actual intention of attempting suicide, potentially creating unnecessary concern and burden on health care resources, Dr. Bryan noted. 

“What do you do with everyone who screens positive?” Dr. Bryan said. “I’ve spoken with leaders of many health systems in the United States, and there is pushback against universal screening because they don’t have enough mental health resources to handle all of the referrals.”

Suicide screening also doesn’t predict who will die by suicide, Dr. Bryan added. It only identifies those willing to disclose suicidal thoughts. There is a significant number of people without mental illness who may never seek medical care, so “the warning signs we’re teaching people to recognize — depression, anxiety, and substance abuse — might not be evident in these individuals,” he said.

“Life sideswipes them suddenly, and they go from 0 to 60 ... and they may have access to a highly lethal method [of suicide] which weaponizes that moment of despair,” said Dr. Bryan. No amount of screening could possibly predict those types of suicides, he added. 

Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, agrees with Dr. Bryan and noted there isn’t a strong correlation between suicidal ideation and death by suicide.

“Suicidal thoughts are very common, but suicide is a rare event,” he said. 

He cited a study that showed that two thirds of individuals who died by suicide had denied experiencing suicidal thoughts when asked, and half of them died within 2 days of this denial. Other research suggests that as many as 98% of people who express suicidal ideation do not die by suicide, Dr. Nestadt said. 
 

A Public Health Issue

If universal screening is not the answer to predicting and preventing suicide, what is? One way would be to approach suicide as a public health issue, Dr. Nestadt said. 

“How did we reduce the rate of motor vehicle deaths? We didn’t test each driver’s reaction time behind the wheel,” he said. “Instead, we passed seatbelt and airbag legislation, implemented federal speed limits, and as a result, the number of motor vehicle fatalities decreased.”

Dr. Nestadt is an advocate for stronger gun safety legislation, which has proven effective in reducing suicide rates. A study published this year showed that states with child access prevention laws, negligent storage laws, and mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases reported fewer suicide deaths than those without that legislation.

Other measures might be applied in cases of extreme individual suicide risk, including extreme risk protection orders, also known as “red flag” laws, he added. This type of legislation provides a pathway for law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others. 

“These have been shown to be very effective in saving lives,” Dr. Nestadt said.

Dr. Nestadt and others are also using machine learning models to predict suicide risk. Those identified as high-risk may be flagged on their electronic medical record. Ideally, when the algorithm becomes more accurate at predicting suicide, anyone treating this patient can then decide if action is needed, said Dr. Nestadt. 

In his work with suicidal military personnel, Dr. Bryan and his colleagues established a brief form of cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) to help participants challenge cognitive distortions and build coping strategies to deal with feel with intense feelings of distress. Data show that BCBT reduced suicide attempts among active-duty soldiers by 60% compared with standard mental health treatment. It has since been shown to work in civilians as well. 

Dr. Bryan is also researching fluctuations in the wish to live versus the wish to die relative to one another and mapping the trajectory of risk states along the way. 

The goal is that these and other suicide prevention strategies currently under study by his team and others will help stem the rise in suicide deaths.

“Overall, we need to train mental health providers to implement suicide prevention therapies and establish suicide risk programs,” Dr. Bryan said. “But until we build one of these suicide prevention interventions to scale, we’re putting the cart before the horse.”

Dr. Roaten, Ms. Brummett, Dr. Bryan, and Dr. Nestadt reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

US suicide rates have reached alarming levels, with data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing a 37% increase from 2000 to 2022. Nearly 49,000 people died by suicide in 2022 alone, translating to one death every 11 minutes. 

The increase in suicide rates has prompted calls for expansion of universal suicide screening, in which all individuals in medical or mental health care settings are screened for suicide risk, regardless of the purpose for their visit. But the psychiatric field is split on the issue, with some experts citing false positives and a lack of mental health care resources for those deemed at risk.

In 2022, when the US Preventative Services Task Force released its recommendations on suicide prevention, first in children and adolescents, and then in adults, the authors said there was insufficient evidence to support universal suicide screening. 

Proponents of the practice pushed back on that finding, arguing that universal suicide screening could help identify those at high risk who might otherwise go undiagnosed, leading to earlier, potentially lifesaving, intervention.

So, what is the case for — and against — universal screening?
 

Sounding an Alert

The introduction of universal screening was driven by a confluence of factors that began with a 1999 report by then-US Surgeon General David Satcher, MD. This was followed by a report in 2016 from the Joint Commission on Detecting and Treating Suicidal Ideation that called for healthcare organizations to improve detection and treatment of suicidal ideation in all healthcare care settings. 

Data from the alert showed that a significant number of people who died by suicide had a healthcare visit before their death. Half had seen a clinician a month before their death; nearly 30% had a medical visit just the week before — all with no detection of increased suicide risk. 

It was that sort of finding that led Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas to become the first US hospital to implement universal suicide screening. Since the program launched in 2015, the system has screened more than 4.3 million patients in its emergency department, inpatient units, and 20 primary care clinics.

“Since the program began, we’ve completed between 40,000 to 50,000 screenings per month,” said Kimberly Roaten, PhD, associate chief quality and safety officer for behavioral health at Parkland Health. 

Clinicians at Parkland use the five-item Ask Suicide-Screening Questions to assess suicidal intent, a commonly used tool that was originally developed for use in pediatric emergency rooms (ERs). The tool, which takes about 20 seconds to administer, has since been validated in both children and adults. 

Based on a patient’s response, a clinical decision support system integrated into the electronic health record classifies suicide risk as none, moderate, or high.

Patients identified as moderate risk are offered a more in-depth assessment with a mental health clinician, though participation is not mandatory, said Dr. Roaten. Those at high risk receive a more thorough evaluation.

The proportion of ER patients at Parkland who screen positive for any suicidal intent has consistently remained at about 7%, and at 2% in the primary care clinics, she said.

To better understand what the program may have had on suicide prevention, Dr. Roaten is leading a National Institute of Mental Health–funded study to link a decade of mortality data from the state of Texas to patient data from Parkland Health. Investigators will analyze information about patients identified at risk for suicide, those patients’ characteristics, and who dies by suicide.
 

Universal Screening Expands

Other health systems have adopted universal suicide screening including the Indian Health Service and the US Veterans Health Administration. Universal suicide screening is also in place in a growing number of primary care practices and hospitals throughout the United States and will be mandatory for patients aged 12 years and older in all acute care hospitals in California beginning in 2025.

There is also a push for universal screening to be coordinated through local, state, and federal government, nonprofit, and private sectors. The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention is charged with advancing the White House’s 2024 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, a 10-year plan to address gaps in suicide prevention in the United States. 

Sarah Brummett, JD, director of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s executive committee, said that universal suicide screening is part of the 2024 strategy. “We know there are barriers to universal screening, and so it’s important to recognize what they are so we can address them,” said Ms. Brummett. 

Barriers may include adequate staffing, or a system in place to triage patients who screen positive. 

At Parkland, cost and workload have been minimal, Dr. Roaten said. “We built a model that only dedicates our highest-value resources to the most at-risk patients.”

She also noted that relief may be on the horizon for health systems where cost is an obstacle to universal screening and subsequent intervention. “There are efforts at the federal level to increase funding for suicide assessment and crisis response,” she said. 
 

Pushback on Universal Screening

Universal suicide screening has its detractors, including critics who say expansion is unlikely to reduce suicide rates.

“The issue with suicidal ideation is that it is very dynamic. Suicidal ideation changes very quickly — sometimes within hours,” said Craig Bryan, PsyD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral health at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. 

Universal screening can also lead to false positives, where a patient who screens positive for suicidal ideation has no actual intention of attempting suicide, potentially creating unnecessary concern and burden on health care resources, Dr. Bryan noted. 

“What do you do with everyone who screens positive?” Dr. Bryan said. “I’ve spoken with leaders of many health systems in the United States, and there is pushback against universal screening because they don’t have enough mental health resources to handle all of the referrals.”

Suicide screening also doesn’t predict who will die by suicide, Dr. Bryan added. It only identifies those willing to disclose suicidal thoughts. There is a significant number of people without mental illness who may never seek medical care, so “the warning signs we’re teaching people to recognize — depression, anxiety, and substance abuse — might not be evident in these individuals,” he said.

“Life sideswipes them suddenly, and they go from 0 to 60 ... and they may have access to a highly lethal method [of suicide] which weaponizes that moment of despair,” said Dr. Bryan. No amount of screening could possibly predict those types of suicides, he added. 

Paul Nestadt, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, agrees with Dr. Bryan and noted there isn’t a strong correlation between suicidal ideation and death by suicide.

“Suicidal thoughts are very common, but suicide is a rare event,” he said. 

He cited a study that showed that two thirds of individuals who died by suicide had denied experiencing suicidal thoughts when asked, and half of them died within 2 days of this denial. Other research suggests that as many as 98% of people who express suicidal ideation do not die by suicide, Dr. Nestadt said. 
 

A Public Health Issue

If universal screening is not the answer to predicting and preventing suicide, what is? One way would be to approach suicide as a public health issue, Dr. Nestadt said. 

“How did we reduce the rate of motor vehicle deaths? We didn’t test each driver’s reaction time behind the wheel,” he said. “Instead, we passed seatbelt and airbag legislation, implemented federal speed limits, and as a result, the number of motor vehicle fatalities decreased.”

Dr. Nestadt is an advocate for stronger gun safety legislation, which has proven effective in reducing suicide rates. A study published this year showed that states with child access prevention laws, negligent storage laws, and mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases reported fewer suicide deaths than those without that legislation.

Other measures might be applied in cases of extreme individual suicide risk, including extreme risk protection orders, also known as “red flag” laws, he added. This type of legislation provides a pathway for law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others. 

“These have been shown to be very effective in saving lives,” Dr. Nestadt said.

Dr. Nestadt and others are also using machine learning models to predict suicide risk. Those identified as high-risk may be flagged on their electronic medical record. Ideally, when the algorithm becomes more accurate at predicting suicide, anyone treating this patient can then decide if action is needed, said Dr. Nestadt. 

In his work with suicidal military personnel, Dr. Bryan and his colleagues established a brief form of cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) to help participants challenge cognitive distortions and build coping strategies to deal with feel with intense feelings of distress. Data show that BCBT reduced suicide attempts among active-duty soldiers by 60% compared with standard mental health treatment. It has since been shown to work in civilians as well. 

Dr. Bryan is also researching fluctuations in the wish to live versus the wish to die relative to one another and mapping the trajectory of risk states along the way. 

The goal is that these and other suicide prevention strategies currently under study by his team and others will help stem the rise in suicide deaths.

“Overall, we need to train mental health providers to implement suicide prevention therapies and establish suicide risk programs,” Dr. Bryan said. “But until we build one of these suicide prevention interventions to scale, we’re putting the cart before the horse.”

Dr. Roaten, Ms. Brummett, Dr. Bryan, and Dr. Nestadt reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.