Business of Medicine

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

This story was translated from JIM 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.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to pose a question: When should doctors retire? When, as practicing physicians or surgeons, do we become too old to deliver competent service? 

You will be amazed to hear, those of you who have listened to my videos before — and although it is a matter of public knowledge — that I’m 68. I know it’s impossible to imagine, due to this youthful appearance, visage, and so on, but I am. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years; therefore, I need to think a little about retirement. 

There are two elements of this for me. I’m a university professor, and in Oxford we did vote, as a democracy of scholars, to have a mandatory retirement age around 68. This is so that we can bring new blood forward so that we can create the space to promote new professors, to bring youngsters in to make new ideas, and to get rid of us fusty old lot. 

The other argument would be, of course, that we are wise, we’re experienced, we are world-weary, and we’re successful — otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as academics as long. Nevertheless, we voted to do that. 

It’s possible to have a discussion with the university to extend this, and for those of us who are clinical academics, I have an honorary appointment as a consultant cancer physician in the hospital and my university professorial appointment, too.

I can extend it probably until I’m about 70. It feels like a nice, round number at which to retire — somewhat arbitrarily, one would admit. But does that feel right? 

In the United States, more than 25% of the physician workforce is over the age of 65. There are many studies showing that there is a 20% cognitive decline for most individuals between the ages of 45 and 65.

Are we as capable as an elderly workforce as once we were? Clearly, it’s hardly individualistic. It depends on each of our own health status, where we started from, and so on, but are there any general rules that we can apply? I think these are starting to creep in around the sense of revalidation.

In the United Kingdom, we have a General Medical Council (GMC). I need to have a license to practice from the GMC and a sense of fitness to practice. I have annual appraisals within the hospital system, in which I explore delivery of care, how I’m doing as a mentor, am I reaching the milestones I’ve set in terms of academic achievements, and so on.

This is a peer-to-peer process. We have senior physicians — people like myself — who act as appraisers to support our colleagues and to maintain that sense of fitness to practice. Every 5 years, I’m revalidated by the GMC. They take account of the annual appraisals and a report made by the senior physician within my hospital network who’s a so-called designated person.

These two elements come together with patient feedback, with 360-degree feedback from colleagues, and so on. This is quite a firmly regulated system that I think works. Our mandatory retirement age of 65 has gone. That was phased out by the government. In fact, our NHS is making an effort to retain older elders in the workforce.

They see the benefits of mentorship, experience, leadership, and networks. At a time when the majority of NHS are actively seeking to retire when 65, the NHS is trying to retain and pull back those of us who have been around for that wee bit longer and who still feel committed to doing it. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. There’s variation from country to country. I know that, in Australia, they’re talking about annual appraisals of doctors over the age of 70. I’d be very interested to hear what you think is likely to happen in the United States. 

I think our system works pretty well, as long as you’re within the NHS and hospital system. If you wanted to still practice, but practice privately, you would still have to find somebody who’d be prepared to conduct appraisals and so on outside of the NHS. It’s an interesting area. 

For myself, I still feel competent. Patients seem to like me. That’s an objective assessment by this 360-degree thing in which patients reflected very positively, indeed, in my approach to the delivery of the care and so on, as did colleagues. I’m still publishing, I go to meetings, I cheer things, bits and bobs. I’d say I’m a wee bit unusual in terms of still having a strong academic profile in doing stuff.

It’s an interesting question. Richard Doll, one of the world’s great epidemiologists who, of course, was the dominant discoverer of the link between smoking and lung cancer, was attending seminars, sitting in the front row, and coming into university 3 days a week at age 90, continuing to be contributory with his extraordinarily sharp intellect and vast, vast experience.

When I think of experience, all young cancer doctors are now immunologists. When I was a young doctor, I was a clinical pharmacologist. There are many lessons and tricks that I learned which I do need to pass on to the younger generation of today. What do you think? Should there be a mandatory retirement age? How do we best measure, assess, and revalidate elderly physicians and surgeons? How can we continue to contribute to those who choose to do so? For the time being, as always, thanks for listening.
 

Dr. Kerr is professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, and professor of cancer medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He has disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers (Board of Directors); Afrox (charity; Trustee); GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Consultant), Genomic Health; Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Women are underrepresented as authors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023. RCTs from Africa had higher women representation as authors, while RCTs from Asia and Europe and industry-funded RCTs had lower representation of women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 1092 RCTs published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023 involving 10,794 authors to evaluate the temporal trends and the factors influencing women’s authorship.
• The gender of authors was determined on the basis of their first names and countries of affiliation using a gender application programming interface service.
• The study assessed the association of women’s authorship with various factors using generalized estimating equations by considering women’s gender as the main binary outcome.
• Various covariates influencing women’s authorship such as geographic location, sponsorship type, intervention type, and journal impact factor were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, women accounted for 34.1% of authors in RCTs published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023. They had less representation as first and last authors than men (36.8% vs 50.0% and 26.1% vs 61.2%, respectively).
• RCTs from Africa had higher odds of being authored by women than those from North America (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.02-5.38). Women were also less represented as authors in RCTs from Asia and Europe.
• Their representation as authors was lower in industry-funded RCTs as well (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.73).
• Women were less likely to be in senior author positions such as last (OR, 0.72) or penultimate (OR, 0.70; P < .001 for both) authors than in middle author positions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Implementing structured policies and supporting women through mentorship and leadership opportunities are crucial steps toward a more inclusive and dynamic research environment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kim Lauper, MD, Geneva University Hospitals, Division of Rheumatology and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland, and was published online on August 26, 2024, in medRxiv.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study relied on binary gender data, which did not encompass nonbinary or other gender identities. Moreover, the accuracy of gender determination from names, although robust, had inherent limitations that could have affected the interpretation of results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

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

TOPLINE: 

Women are underrepresented as authors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023. RCTs from Africa had higher women representation as authors, while RCTs from Asia and Europe and industry-funded RCTs had lower representation of women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 1092 RCTs published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023 involving 10,794 authors to evaluate the temporal trends and the factors influencing women’s authorship.
• The gender of authors was determined on the basis of their first names and countries of affiliation using a gender application programming interface service.
• The study assessed the association of women’s authorship with various factors using generalized estimating equations by considering women’s gender as the main binary outcome.
• Various covariates influencing women’s authorship such as geographic location, sponsorship type, intervention type, and journal impact factor were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, women accounted for 34.1% of authors in RCTs published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023. They had less representation as first and last authors than men (36.8% vs 50.0% and 26.1% vs 61.2%, respectively).
• RCTs from Africa had higher odds of being authored by women than those from North America (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.02-5.38). Women were also less represented as authors in RCTs from Asia and Europe.
• Their representation as authors was lower in industry-funded RCTs as well (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.73).
• Women were less likely to be in senior author positions such as last (OR, 0.72) or penultimate (OR, 0.70; P < .001 for both) authors than in middle author positions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Implementing structured policies and supporting women through mentorship and leadership opportunities are crucial steps toward a more inclusive and dynamic research environment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kim Lauper, MD, Geneva University Hospitals, Division of Rheumatology and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland, and was published online on August 26, 2024, in medRxiv.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study relied on binary gender data, which did not encompass nonbinary or other gender identities. Moreover, the accuracy of gender determination from names, although robust, had inherent limitations that could have affected the interpretation of results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

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

TOPLINE: 

Women are underrepresented as authors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023. RCTs from Africa had higher women representation as authors, while RCTs from Asia and Europe and industry-funded RCTs had lower representation of women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 1092 RCTs published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023 involving 10,794 authors to evaluate the temporal trends and the factors influencing women’s authorship.
• The gender of authors was determined on the basis of their first names and countries of affiliation using a gender application programming interface service.
• The study assessed the association of women’s authorship with various factors using generalized estimating equations by considering women’s gender as the main binary outcome.
• Various covariates influencing women’s authorship such as geographic location, sponsorship type, intervention type, and journal impact factor were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, women accounted for 34.1% of authors in RCTs published in rheumatology from 2009 to 2023. They had less representation as first and last authors than men (36.8% vs 50.0% and 26.1% vs 61.2%, respectively).
• RCTs from Africa had higher odds of being authored by women than those from North America (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 1.02-5.38). Women were also less represented as authors in RCTs from Asia and Europe.
• Their representation as authors was lower in industry-funded RCTs as well (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.73).
• Women were less likely to be in senior author positions such as last (OR, 0.72) or penultimate (OR, 0.70; P < .001 for both) authors than in middle author positions.

IN PRACTICE:

“Implementing structured policies and supporting women through mentorship and leadership opportunities are crucial steps toward a more inclusive and dynamic research environment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kim Lauper, MD, Geneva University Hospitals, Division of Rheumatology and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland, and was published online on August 26, 2024, in medRxiv.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study relied on binary gender data, which did not encompass nonbinary or other gender identities. Moreover, the accuracy of gender determination from names, although robust, had inherent limitations that could have affected the interpretation of results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — When Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, began reviewing responses to an exploratory survey she and her colleagues created on dermatologists’ use of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in clinical practice, she was both surprised and alarmed.

Of the 134 respondents who completed the survey, 87 (65%) reported using LLMs in a clinical setting. Of those 87 respondents, 17 (20%) used LMMs daily, 28 (32%) weekly, 5 (6%) monthly, and 37 (43%) rarely. That represents “pretty significant usage,” Dr. Daneshjou, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

courtesy Dr. Roxana Daneshjou

Most of the respondents reported using LLMs for patient care (79%), followed by administrative tasks (74%), medical records (43%), and education (18%), “which can be problematic,” she said. “These models are not appropriate to use for patient care.”

When asked about their thoughts on the accuracy of LLMs, 58% of respondents deemed them to be “somewhat accurate” and 7% viewed them as “extremely accurate.”

The overall survey responses raise concern because LLMs “are not trained for accuracy; they are trained initially as a next-word predictor on large bodies of tech data,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “LLMs are already being implemented but have the potential to cause harm and bias, and I believe they will if we implement them the way things are rolling out right now. I don’t understand why we’re implementing something without any clinical trial or showing that it improves care before we throw untested technology into our healthcare system.”

Meanwhile, Epic and Microsoft are collaborating to bring AI technology to electronic health records, she said, and Epic is building more than 100 new AI features for physicians and patients. “I think it’s important for every physician and trainee to understand what is going on in the realm of AI,” said Dr. Daneshjou, who is an associate editor for the monthly journal NEJM AI. “Be involved in the conversation because we are the clinical experts, and a lot of people making decisions and building tools do not have the clinical expertise.”

To further illustrate her concerns, Dr. Daneshjou referenced a red teaming event she and her colleagues held with computer scientists, biomedical data scientists, engineers, and physicians across multiple specialties to identify issues related to safety, bias, factual errors, and/or security issues in GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 with internet. The goal was to mimic clinical health scenarios, ask the LLM to respond, and have the team members review the accuracy of LLM responses.

The participants found that nearly 20% of LLM responses were inappropriate. For example, in one task, an LLM was asked to calculate a RegiSCAR score for Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms for a patient, but the response included an incorrect score for eosinophilia. “That’s why these tools can be so dangerous because you’re reading along and everything seems right, but there might be something so minor that can impact patient care and you might miss it,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

On a related note, she advised against dermatologists uploading images into GPT-4 Vision, an LLM that can analyze images and provide textual responses to questions about them, and she recommends not using GPT-4 Vision for any diagnostic support. At this time, “GPT-4 Vision overcalls malignancies, and the specificity and sensitivity are not very good,” she explained.

Dr. Daneshjou disclosed that she has served as an adviser to MDalgorithms and Revea and has received consulting fees from Pfizer, L’Oréal, Frazier Healthcare Partners, and DWA and research funding from UCB.

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — When Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, began reviewing responses to an exploratory survey she and her colleagues created on dermatologists’ use of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in clinical practice, she was both surprised and alarmed.

Of the 134 respondents who completed the survey, 87 (65%) reported using LLMs in a clinical setting. Of those 87 respondents, 17 (20%) used LMMs daily, 28 (32%) weekly, 5 (6%) monthly, and 37 (43%) rarely. That represents “pretty significant usage,” Dr. Daneshjou, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

courtesy Dr. Roxana Daneshjou

Most of the respondents reported using LLMs for patient care (79%), followed by administrative tasks (74%), medical records (43%), and education (18%), “which can be problematic,” she said. “These models are not appropriate to use for patient care.”

When asked about their thoughts on the accuracy of LLMs, 58% of respondents deemed them to be “somewhat accurate” and 7% viewed them as “extremely accurate.”

The overall survey responses raise concern because LLMs “are not trained for accuracy; they are trained initially as a next-word predictor on large bodies of tech data,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “LLMs are already being implemented but have the potential to cause harm and bias, and I believe they will if we implement them the way things are rolling out right now. I don’t understand why we’re implementing something without any clinical trial or showing that it improves care before we throw untested technology into our healthcare system.”

Meanwhile, Epic and Microsoft are collaborating to bring AI technology to electronic health records, she said, and Epic is building more than 100 new AI features for physicians and patients. “I think it’s important for every physician and trainee to understand what is going on in the realm of AI,” said Dr. Daneshjou, who is an associate editor for the monthly journal NEJM AI. “Be involved in the conversation because we are the clinical experts, and a lot of people making decisions and building tools do not have the clinical expertise.”

To further illustrate her concerns, Dr. Daneshjou referenced a red teaming event she and her colleagues held with computer scientists, biomedical data scientists, engineers, and physicians across multiple specialties to identify issues related to safety, bias, factual errors, and/or security issues in GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 with internet. The goal was to mimic clinical health scenarios, ask the LLM to respond, and have the team members review the accuracy of LLM responses.

The participants found that nearly 20% of LLM responses were inappropriate. For example, in one task, an LLM was asked to calculate a RegiSCAR score for Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms for a patient, but the response included an incorrect score for eosinophilia. “That’s why these tools can be so dangerous because you’re reading along and everything seems right, but there might be something so minor that can impact patient care and you might miss it,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

On a related note, she advised against dermatologists uploading images into GPT-4 Vision, an LLM that can analyze images and provide textual responses to questions about them, and she recommends not using GPT-4 Vision for any diagnostic support. At this time, “GPT-4 Vision overcalls malignancies, and the specificity and sensitivity are not very good,” she explained.

Dr. Daneshjou disclosed that she has served as an adviser to MDalgorithms and Revea and has received consulting fees from Pfizer, L’Oréal, Frazier Healthcare Partners, and DWA and research funding from UCB.

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — When Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, began reviewing responses to an exploratory survey she and her colleagues created on dermatologists’ use of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in clinical practice, she was both surprised and alarmed.

Of the 134 respondents who completed the survey, 87 (65%) reported using LLMs in a clinical setting. Of those 87 respondents, 17 (20%) used LMMs daily, 28 (32%) weekly, 5 (6%) monthly, and 37 (43%) rarely. That represents “pretty significant usage,” Dr. Daneshjou, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

courtesy Dr. Roxana Daneshjou

Most of the respondents reported using LLMs for patient care (79%), followed by administrative tasks (74%), medical records (43%), and education (18%), “which can be problematic,” she said. “These models are not appropriate to use for patient care.”

When asked about their thoughts on the accuracy of LLMs, 58% of respondents deemed them to be “somewhat accurate” and 7% viewed them as “extremely accurate.”

The overall survey responses raise concern because LLMs “are not trained for accuracy; they are trained initially as a next-word predictor on large bodies of tech data,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “LLMs are already being implemented but have the potential to cause harm and bias, and I believe they will if we implement them the way things are rolling out right now. I don’t understand why we’re implementing something without any clinical trial or showing that it improves care before we throw untested technology into our healthcare system.”

Meanwhile, Epic and Microsoft are collaborating to bring AI technology to electronic health records, she said, and Epic is building more than 100 new AI features for physicians and patients. “I think it’s important for every physician and trainee to understand what is going on in the realm of AI,” said Dr. Daneshjou, who is an associate editor for the monthly journal NEJM AI. “Be involved in the conversation because we are the clinical experts, and a lot of people making decisions and building tools do not have the clinical expertise.”

To further illustrate her concerns, Dr. Daneshjou referenced a red teaming event she and her colleagues held with computer scientists, biomedical data scientists, engineers, and physicians across multiple specialties to identify issues related to safety, bias, factual errors, and/or security issues in GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 with internet. The goal was to mimic clinical health scenarios, ask the LLM to respond, and have the team members review the accuracy of LLM responses.

The participants found that nearly 20% of LLM responses were inappropriate. For example, in one task, an LLM was asked to calculate a RegiSCAR score for Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms for a patient, but the response included an incorrect score for eosinophilia. “That’s why these tools can be so dangerous because you’re reading along and everything seems right, but there might be something so minor that can impact patient care and you might miss it,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

On a related note, she advised against dermatologists uploading images into GPT-4 Vision, an LLM that can analyze images and provide textual responses to questions about them, and she recommends not using GPT-4 Vision for any diagnostic support. At this time, “GPT-4 Vision overcalls malignancies, and the specificity and sensitivity are not very good,” she explained.

Dr. Daneshjou disclosed that she has served as an adviser to MDalgorithms and Revea and has received consulting fees from Pfizer, L’Oréal, Frazier Healthcare Partners, and DWA and research funding from UCB.

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

CHICAGO — Use of CO₂ lasers and similar “energy-based” treatments result in little to no benefit for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, according to research presented at the The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago on September 12.

“There was a concern that menopausal women are being targeted for treatments that may not have a lot of benefit and might have significant harms,” Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a physician at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization. While she was not surprised to find little evidence of benefit, “we were a little bit surprised that we also didn’t find significant evidence of harms.”

The study was unable to evaluate the potential for financial harms, but Dr. Danan noted that these therapies are often expensive and not typically covered by insurance. The treatments appear to be used primarily in private practice, she said, while “most academic clinicians were not familiar with these and do not use these lasers.”

The American Urological Association had requested the review, Dr. Danan said, “to inform clinical guidelines that they could put out for practitioners about treating genital urinary syndrome from menopause.” Yet the evidence available remains slim. “There’s a lot of outcomes that were not looked at by most of these [trials], or they were looked at in a way that we couldn’t separate out,” she said.

Kamalini Das, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the research, was surprised by the findings because studies to date have been variable, “but since this looks at multiple studies and they find no benefits, I would take these results as more significant than any of the small studies,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Das said she has patients who ask about using these therapies and have had them done. “So far, I’ve told them the jury is out on whether it will help or not, that there are some studies that say they’re beneficial and some studies that they’re not,” Dr. Das said.

But this new review changes what she will tell patients going forward, she said. “This is a good study because it consolidates lots of little studies, so I think I would use this to say, looking at all the studies together, this treatment is not beneficial.”

GSM occurs due to the body’s reduced production of estrogen and affects anywhere from 27% to 84% of postmenopausal women. It can involve a constellation of symptoms ranging from vaginal discomfort and irritation to painful urination or intercourse. Typical recommended treatments for GSM include systemic hormone therapy, localized hormonal treatments such as vaginal estrogen or dehydroepiandrosterone, nonhormonal creams and moisturizers, and the prescription drug ospemifene.

Most of these have been found effective, according to a recent systematic review  Dr. Danan published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that this news organization covered. But recent years have also seen a rapid increase in interest and the availability of energy-based treatments for GSM, such as CO₂ laser and radiofrequency interventions, particularly for those who cannot or do not want to use hormonal treatments. The idea behind these newer therapies is that they “heat tissue to cause a denaturation of collagen fibers and induce a wound-healing response,” with the aim of “enhancement of vaginal elasticity, restoration of premenopausal epithelial function, and symptom improvement,” the authors wrote.

Evidence has been scant and uneven for the safety and effectiveness of these treatments, and they have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The agency issued a warning in 2018 with remarks from then Commissioner Scott Gottlieb that the “products have serious risks and don’t have adequate evidence to support their use for these purposes.”

Much of the evidence has focused on CO₂ lasers instead of other energy-based treatments, however, and a raft of new studies have been published on these interventions in the past 2 years. Dr. Danan and colleagues, therefore, assessed the most current state of the research with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies with control groups published through December 11, 2023.

Included studies needed to evaluate an energy-based treatment for at least 8 weeks in a minimum of 40 postmenopausal women (20 in each group) who had one or more GSM symptoms. The authors also included nonrandomized and uncontrolled studies with a follow-up of a year or more to assess possible adverse events. The studies also needed to assess at least one of eight core outcomes: Dyspareunia; vulvovaginal dryness; vulvovaginal discomfort/irritation; dysuria; change in most bothersome symptom; treatment satisfaction; adverse events; and distress, bother, or interference associated with genitourinary symptoms.

The authors identified 32 studies, including 16 RCTs, one quasi-RCT, and 15 nonrandomized studies. The researchers extracted and analyzed data from the 10 RCTs and one quasi-RCT that were rated as having low to moderate risk for bias.

Most of these studies assessed CO₂ lasers alone, while three assessed erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and one looked at CO₂ lasers vs radiofrequency treatments.

The average age of participants ranged from 56 to 64 years, and most trials were in the United States. Results showed that CO₂ lasers led to little or no difference in dysuria, dyspareunia, or quality of life when compared with sham lasers. The CO₂ laser therapy also showed little to no difference compared with vaginal estrogen creams for dyspareunia, dryness, discomfort/irritation, dysuria, or quality of life.

Most CO₂ laser studies reported on most outcomes, but the Er:YAG studies tended to report only on quality of life and/or one or two other outcomes. The radiofrequency study only assessed dyspareunia and quality of life.

“Treatment effects on other outcomes and effects of Er:YAG laser or radiofrequency on any outcomes are very uncertain,” the authors reported. Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported based on 15 studies, including the additional non-RCTs that had follow-up for at least a year.

“There are case reports and other types of studies that have shown some bad outcomes using laser therapies, and we really wanted to be expansive and include anything, especially because this is such a new treatment and all these trials were in the last couple of years,” Dr. Danan said. 

The review was limited by inconsistent or nonvalidated outcome reporting in the studies as well as small populations and short follow-up, typically less than 3 months.

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Danan and Dr. Das had no disclosures.
 

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

CHICAGO — Use of CO₂ lasers and similar “energy-based” treatments result in little to no benefit for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, according to research presented at the The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago on September 12.

“There was a concern that menopausal women are being targeted for treatments that may not have a lot of benefit and might have significant harms,” Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a physician at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization. While she was not surprised to find little evidence of benefit, “we were a little bit surprised that we also didn’t find significant evidence of harms.”

The study was unable to evaluate the potential for financial harms, but Dr. Danan noted that these therapies are often expensive and not typically covered by insurance. The treatments appear to be used primarily in private practice, she said, while “most academic clinicians were not familiar with these and do not use these lasers.”

The American Urological Association had requested the review, Dr. Danan said, “to inform clinical guidelines that they could put out for practitioners about treating genital urinary syndrome from menopause.” Yet the evidence available remains slim. “There’s a lot of outcomes that were not looked at by most of these [trials], or they were looked at in a way that we couldn’t separate out,” she said.

Kamalini Das, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the research, was surprised by the findings because studies to date have been variable, “but since this looks at multiple studies and they find no benefits, I would take these results as more significant than any of the small studies,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Das said she has patients who ask about using these therapies and have had them done. “So far, I’ve told them the jury is out on whether it will help or not, that there are some studies that say they’re beneficial and some studies that they’re not,” Dr. Das said.

But this new review changes what she will tell patients going forward, she said. “This is a good study because it consolidates lots of little studies, so I think I would use this to say, looking at all the studies together, this treatment is not beneficial.”

GSM occurs due to the body’s reduced production of estrogen and affects anywhere from 27% to 84% of postmenopausal women. It can involve a constellation of symptoms ranging from vaginal discomfort and irritation to painful urination or intercourse. Typical recommended treatments for GSM include systemic hormone therapy, localized hormonal treatments such as vaginal estrogen or dehydroepiandrosterone, nonhormonal creams and moisturizers, and the prescription drug ospemifene.

Most of these have been found effective, according to a recent systematic review  Dr. Danan published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that this news organization covered. But recent years have also seen a rapid increase in interest and the availability of energy-based treatments for GSM, such as CO₂ laser and radiofrequency interventions, particularly for those who cannot or do not want to use hormonal treatments. The idea behind these newer therapies is that they “heat tissue to cause a denaturation of collagen fibers and induce a wound-healing response,” with the aim of “enhancement of vaginal elasticity, restoration of premenopausal epithelial function, and symptom improvement,” the authors wrote.

Evidence has been scant and uneven for the safety and effectiveness of these treatments, and they have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The agency issued a warning in 2018 with remarks from then Commissioner Scott Gottlieb that the “products have serious risks and don’t have adequate evidence to support their use for these purposes.”

Much of the evidence has focused on CO₂ lasers instead of other energy-based treatments, however, and a raft of new studies have been published on these interventions in the past 2 years. Dr. Danan and colleagues, therefore, assessed the most current state of the research with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies with control groups published through December 11, 2023.

Included studies needed to evaluate an energy-based treatment for at least 8 weeks in a minimum of 40 postmenopausal women (20 in each group) who had one or more GSM symptoms. The authors also included nonrandomized and uncontrolled studies with a follow-up of a year or more to assess possible adverse events. The studies also needed to assess at least one of eight core outcomes: Dyspareunia; vulvovaginal dryness; vulvovaginal discomfort/irritation; dysuria; change in most bothersome symptom; treatment satisfaction; adverse events; and distress, bother, or interference associated with genitourinary symptoms.

The authors identified 32 studies, including 16 RCTs, one quasi-RCT, and 15 nonrandomized studies. The researchers extracted and analyzed data from the 10 RCTs and one quasi-RCT that were rated as having low to moderate risk for bias.

Most of these studies assessed CO₂ lasers alone, while three assessed erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and one looked at CO₂ lasers vs radiofrequency treatments.

The average age of participants ranged from 56 to 64 years, and most trials were in the United States. Results showed that CO₂ lasers led to little or no difference in dysuria, dyspareunia, or quality of life when compared with sham lasers. The CO₂ laser therapy also showed little to no difference compared with vaginal estrogen creams for dyspareunia, dryness, discomfort/irritation, dysuria, or quality of life.

Most CO₂ laser studies reported on most outcomes, but the Er:YAG studies tended to report only on quality of life and/or one or two other outcomes. The radiofrequency study only assessed dyspareunia and quality of life.

“Treatment effects on other outcomes and effects of Er:YAG laser or radiofrequency on any outcomes are very uncertain,” the authors reported. Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported based on 15 studies, including the additional non-RCTs that had follow-up for at least a year.

“There are case reports and other types of studies that have shown some bad outcomes using laser therapies, and we really wanted to be expansive and include anything, especially because this is such a new treatment and all these trials were in the last couple of years,” Dr. Danan said. 

The review was limited by inconsistent or nonvalidated outcome reporting in the studies as well as small populations and short follow-up, typically less than 3 months.

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Danan and Dr. Das had no disclosures.
 

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

CHICAGO — Use of CO₂ lasers and similar “energy-based” treatments result in little to no benefit for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, according to research presented at the The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago on September 12.

“There was a concern that menopausal women are being targeted for treatments that may not have a lot of benefit and might have significant harms,” Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a physician at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization. While she was not surprised to find little evidence of benefit, “we were a little bit surprised that we also didn’t find significant evidence of harms.”

The study was unable to evaluate the potential for financial harms, but Dr. Danan noted that these therapies are often expensive and not typically covered by insurance. The treatments appear to be used primarily in private practice, she said, while “most academic clinicians were not familiar with these and do not use these lasers.”

The American Urological Association had requested the review, Dr. Danan said, “to inform clinical guidelines that they could put out for practitioners about treating genital urinary syndrome from menopause.” Yet the evidence available remains slim. “There’s a lot of outcomes that were not looked at by most of these [trials], or they were looked at in a way that we couldn’t separate out,” she said.

Kamalini Das, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the research, was surprised by the findings because studies to date have been variable, “but since this looks at multiple studies and they find no benefits, I would take these results as more significant than any of the small studies,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Das said she has patients who ask about using these therapies and have had them done. “So far, I’ve told them the jury is out on whether it will help or not, that there are some studies that say they’re beneficial and some studies that they’re not,” Dr. Das said.

But this new review changes what she will tell patients going forward, she said. “This is a good study because it consolidates lots of little studies, so I think I would use this to say, looking at all the studies together, this treatment is not beneficial.”

GSM occurs due to the body’s reduced production of estrogen and affects anywhere from 27% to 84% of postmenopausal women. It can involve a constellation of symptoms ranging from vaginal discomfort and irritation to painful urination or intercourse. Typical recommended treatments for GSM include systemic hormone therapy, localized hormonal treatments such as vaginal estrogen or dehydroepiandrosterone, nonhormonal creams and moisturizers, and the prescription drug ospemifene.

Most of these have been found effective, according to a recent systematic review  Dr. Danan published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that this news organization covered. But recent years have also seen a rapid increase in interest and the availability of energy-based treatments for GSM, such as CO₂ laser and radiofrequency interventions, particularly for those who cannot or do not want to use hormonal treatments. The idea behind these newer therapies is that they “heat tissue to cause a denaturation of collagen fibers and induce a wound-healing response,” with the aim of “enhancement of vaginal elasticity, restoration of premenopausal epithelial function, and symptom improvement,” the authors wrote.

Evidence has been scant and uneven for the safety and effectiveness of these treatments, and they have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The agency issued a warning in 2018 with remarks from then Commissioner Scott Gottlieb that the “products have serious risks and don’t have adequate evidence to support their use for these purposes.”

Much of the evidence has focused on CO₂ lasers instead of other energy-based treatments, however, and a raft of new studies have been published on these interventions in the past 2 years. Dr. Danan and colleagues, therefore, assessed the most current state of the research with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies with control groups published through December 11, 2023.

Included studies needed to evaluate an energy-based treatment for at least 8 weeks in a minimum of 40 postmenopausal women (20 in each group) who had one or more GSM symptoms. The authors also included nonrandomized and uncontrolled studies with a follow-up of a year or more to assess possible adverse events. The studies also needed to assess at least one of eight core outcomes: Dyspareunia; vulvovaginal dryness; vulvovaginal discomfort/irritation; dysuria; change in most bothersome symptom; treatment satisfaction; adverse events; and distress, bother, or interference associated with genitourinary symptoms.

The authors identified 32 studies, including 16 RCTs, one quasi-RCT, and 15 nonrandomized studies. The researchers extracted and analyzed data from the 10 RCTs and one quasi-RCT that were rated as having low to moderate risk for bias.

Most of these studies assessed CO₂ lasers alone, while three assessed erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and one looked at CO₂ lasers vs radiofrequency treatments.

The average age of participants ranged from 56 to 64 years, and most trials were in the United States. Results showed that CO₂ lasers led to little or no difference in dysuria, dyspareunia, or quality of life when compared with sham lasers. The CO₂ laser therapy also showed little to no difference compared with vaginal estrogen creams for dyspareunia, dryness, discomfort/irritation, dysuria, or quality of life.

Most CO₂ laser studies reported on most outcomes, but the Er:YAG studies tended to report only on quality of life and/or one or two other outcomes. The radiofrequency study only assessed dyspareunia and quality of life.

“Treatment effects on other outcomes and effects of Er:YAG laser or radiofrequency on any outcomes are very uncertain,” the authors reported. Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported based on 15 studies, including the additional non-RCTs that had follow-up for at least a year.

“There are case reports and other types of studies that have shown some bad outcomes using laser therapies, and we really wanted to be expansive and include anything, especially because this is such a new treatment and all these trials were in the last couple of years,” Dr. Danan said. 

The review was limited by inconsistent or nonvalidated outcome reporting in the studies as well as small populations and short follow-up, typically less than 3 months.

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Danan and Dr. Das had no disclosures.
 

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.