Audio

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For preventing rejection of cardiac transplants in children, the combination of everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus should now be considered an alternative to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus standard-dose tacrolimus, according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.

Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.

In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
 

Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection

The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m² every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).

In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).

The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).

Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
 

Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy

The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.

Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.

On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.

In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).

Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).

Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
 

Study supports safety of everolimus regimen

The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.

However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.

“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.

Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.

He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.

Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.

The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.

Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,

Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

For preventing rejection of cardiac transplants in children, the combination of everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus should now be considered an alternative to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus standard-dose tacrolimus, according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.

Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.

In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
 

Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection

The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m² every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).

In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).

The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).

Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
 

Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy

The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.

Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.

On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.

In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).

Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).

Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
 

Study supports safety of everolimus regimen

The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.

However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.

“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.

Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.

He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.

Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.

The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.

Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,

Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

For preventing rejection of cardiac transplants in children, the combination of everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus should now be considered an alternative to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus standard-dose tacrolimus, according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.

Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.

In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
 

Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection

The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m² every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).

In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).

The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).

Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
 

Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy

The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.

Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.

On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.

In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).

Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).

Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
 

Study supports safety of everolimus regimen

The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.

However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.

“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.

Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.

He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.

Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.

The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.

Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,

Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

DALLAS – Researchers identified behavioral, psychological, and environmental predictors of continued weight loss maintenance vs. weight regain in a large cohort of members of WeightWatchers who had successful long-term weight loss.

On average, the participants had lost 25.5 kg (56 lb) and kept it off for 3.5 years, when they entered the 1-year study.

At study entry and 1 year later, the participants replied to several questionnaires that asked about predictors of weight loss maintenance.

Compared with people who gained weight over the 1-year study, those who maintained their weight within 2.3 kg (5 lb) reported more consistent monitoring of their diet and weight and greater acceptance of uncomfortable food cravings.

They also had reduced disinhibition (tendency to overeat) when faced with food cues, as well as less pain and a more positive body image “at any weight, shape, or size,” Suzanne Phelan, MD, PhD, reported.

Dr. Phelan, from the department of kinesiology and public health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, presented the study in an Obesity symposium at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, and it was simultaneously published in the journal. The study was selected as one of five top papers submitted to the journal to coincide with the meeting.

Future interventions to prevent weight regain should target overeating in response to internal and external food cues and declines in self-monitoring and body image, Dr. Phelan said.

The study aimed to identify behaviors that might predict who might “beat the odds” and sustain long-term weight loss, she said in an interview.

The findings suggest that the people who maintained their weight loss had developed skills to help them cope with cravings and not respond by eating, she said. Continued self-monitoring and body acceptance and appreciation (all body sizes are beautiful) were key elements of successful weight-loss maintenance.
 

No antiobesity drugs or surgery; don’t forget behavioral stuff

Importantly, although 43% of the study participants regained more than five pounds during this 1-year study, they still remained at 18% below their starting weight, “indicating that they were largely successful at weight loss,” Dr. Phelan said.

Michael D. Jensen, MD, editor-in-chief of Obesity, echoed this.

The researchers “did find some weak predictors of success,” said Dr. Jensen, from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “But perhaps as important,” he said, “was that at the end of the trial, even those who had regained some slight weight still had 18% weight loss – which is not trivial – after, on average, 4.5 years with a standard commercial weight management program.

“At every talk I go to here,” the message is, “Let’s stampede towards use of the drugs and skip diet and exercise and behavioral stuff,” he observed. “I would argue,” he said, “that when it works, it works really well, and it’s free. So this idea that we shouldn’t even try it, because we know it’s going to fail, is wrong.

“If you have the right group, they have a decent chance of having a sufficiently good response that you don’t have to give the medications and you don’t have to send them for bariatric surgery.

“Once you learn from these programs what to do, you’re not paying $1,000 a month for a drug and you haven’t had bariatric surgery,” Dr. Jensen noted. “Their 3 years of follow-up of WeightWatchers cost less than 1 month worth of one of these [antiobesity medications].”

The predictive findings were like ‘”icing on the cake,” he said. Anybody can find five people who’ve done well with therapy, but this study was in more than 2,800 people who did well with a commercial program that is not expensive.
 

Study design and findings

Between 2019 and 2020, WeightWatchers invited adult members who had maintained weight loss of at least 9.1 kg (20 lb) for at least 1 year to participate in this study.

Of 7,025 participants who entered the study, 4,004 individuals (57%) who did not complete the 1-year questionnaires and others with implausible weight were excluded, leaving a final sample of 2,843 participants.

Most participants were women (92%), non-Hispanic White (95%), married (92%), and college educated. They had a mean age of 56 years.

On average, the participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 35.9 kg/m² (grade 2 obesity) at the start of the WeightWatchers program and a BMI of 26.7 when they entered the current study.

At the 1-year follow-up, 57% of the participants had maintained the same weight (within 2.3 kg) as when they enrolled in the study, and 43% had gained ≥ 2.3 kg.

On average, the weight-loss maintainers had gained 0.4 kg (0.88 lb). The weight gainers had gained 7.2 kg (15.9 lb) but were still 19.1 kg (42.1 lb) below the weight they had when they started the WeightWatchers program.

At baseline, compared with the weight gainers, the weight-loss maintainers were on average older (58 vs. 52 years), had a lower initial BMI (26 vs. 28), and had longer duration of weight loss maintenance (4 vs. 3 years).

At 1 year, those who had maintained their weight loss had greater self-monitoring, psychological coping, physical activity strategies, dietary choice strategies, and eating and physical activity habits, and they had less eating initiation in the absence of hunger.

They also had less disinhibition, more willingness to ignore cravings and accept food urges, more future orientation, more mindfulness, more positive body image and body satisfaction, better general health and mental health, and less bodily pain.

This research was supported by a grant to Dr. Phelan from WeightWatchers (WW) International, and three study authors are employees and shareholders of the company. Dr. Jensen discloses consulting for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and for Seattle Gummy Co.

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

DALLAS – Researchers identified behavioral, psychological, and environmental predictors of continued weight loss maintenance vs. weight regain in a large cohort of members of WeightWatchers who had successful long-term weight loss.

On average, the participants had lost 25.5 kg (56 lb) and kept it off for 3.5 years, when they entered the 1-year study.

At study entry and 1 year later, the participants replied to several questionnaires that asked about predictors of weight loss maintenance.

Compared with people who gained weight over the 1-year study, those who maintained their weight within 2.3 kg (5 lb) reported more consistent monitoring of their diet and weight and greater acceptance of uncomfortable food cravings.

They also had reduced disinhibition (tendency to overeat) when faced with food cues, as well as less pain and a more positive body image “at any weight, shape, or size,” Suzanne Phelan, MD, PhD, reported.

Dr. Phelan, from the department of kinesiology and public health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, presented the study in an Obesity symposium at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, and it was simultaneously published in the journal. The study was selected as one of five top papers submitted to the journal to coincide with the meeting.

Future interventions to prevent weight regain should target overeating in response to internal and external food cues and declines in self-monitoring and body image, Dr. Phelan said.

The study aimed to identify behaviors that might predict who might “beat the odds” and sustain long-term weight loss, she said in an interview.

The findings suggest that the people who maintained their weight loss had developed skills to help them cope with cravings and not respond by eating, she said. Continued self-monitoring and body acceptance and appreciation (all body sizes are beautiful) were key elements of successful weight-loss maintenance.
 

No antiobesity drugs or surgery; don’t forget behavioral stuff

Importantly, although 43% of the study participants regained more than five pounds during this 1-year study, they still remained at 18% below their starting weight, “indicating that they were largely successful at weight loss,” Dr. Phelan said.

Michael D. Jensen, MD, editor-in-chief of Obesity, echoed this.

The researchers “did find some weak predictors of success,” said Dr. Jensen, from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “But perhaps as important,” he said, “was that at the end of the trial, even those who had regained some slight weight still had 18% weight loss – which is not trivial – after, on average, 4.5 years with a standard commercial weight management program.

“At every talk I go to here,” the message is, “Let’s stampede towards use of the drugs and skip diet and exercise and behavioral stuff,” he observed. “I would argue,” he said, “that when it works, it works really well, and it’s free. So this idea that we shouldn’t even try it, because we know it’s going to fail, is wrong.

“If you have the right group, they have a decent chance of having a sufficiently good response that you don’t have to give the medications and you don’t have to send them for bariatric surgery.

“Once you learn from these programs what to do, you’re not paying $1,000 a month for a drug and you haven’t had bariatric surgery,” Dr. Jensen noted. “Their 3 years of follow-up of WeightWatchers cost less than 1 month worth of one of these [antiobesity medications].”

The predictive findings were like ‘”icing on the cake,” he said. Anybody can find five people who’ve done well with therapy, but this study was in more than 2,800 people who did well with a commercial program that is not expensive.
 

Study design and findings

Between 2019 and 2020, WeightWatchers invited adult members who had maintained weight loss of at least 9.1 kg (20 lb) for at least 1 year to participate in this study.

Of 7,025 participants who entered the study, 4,004 individuals (57%) who did not complete the 1-year questionnaires and others with implausible weight were excluded, leaving a final sample of 2,843 participants.

Most participants were women (92%), non-Hispanic White (95%), married (92%), and college educated. They had a mean age of 56 years.

On average, the participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 35.9 kg/m² (grade 2 obesity) at the start of the WeightWatchers program and a BMI of 26.7 when they entered the current study.

At the 1-year follow-up, 57% of the participants had maintained the same weight (within 2.3 kg) as when they enrolled in the study, and 43% had gained ≥ 2.3 kg.

On average, the weight-loss maintainers had gained 0.4 kg (0.88 lb). The weight gainers had gained 7.2 kg (15.9 lb) but were still 19.1 kg (42.1 lb) below the weight they had when they started the WeightWatchers program.

At baseline, compared with the weight gainers, the weight-loss maintainers were on average older (58 vs. 52 years), had a lower initial BMI (26 vs. 28), and had longer duration of weight loss maintenance (4 vs. 3 years).

At 1 year, those who had maintained their weight loss had greater self-monitoring, psychological coping, physical activity strategies, dietary choice strategies, and eating and physical activity habits, and they had less eating initiation in the absence of hunger.

They also had less disinhibition, more willingness to ignore cravings and accept food urges, more future orientation, more mindfulness, more positive body image and body satisfaction, better general health and mental health, and less bodily pain.

This research was supported by a grant to Dr. Phelan from WeightWatchers (WW) International, and three study authors are employees and shareholders of the company. Dr. Jensen discloses consulting for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and for Seattle Gummy Co.

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

DALLAS – Researchers identified behavioral, psychological, and environmental predictors of continued weight loss maintenance vs. weight regain in a large cohort of members of WeightWatchers who had successful long-term weight loss.

On average, the participants had lost 25.5 kg (56 lb) and kept it off for 3.5 years, when they entered the 1-year study.

At study entry and 1 year later, the participants replied to several questionnaires that asked about predictors of weight loss maintenance.

Compared with people who gained weight over the 1-year study, those who maintained their weight within 2.3 kg (5 lb) reported more consistent monitoring of their diet and weight and greater acceptance of uncomfortable food cravings.

They also had reduced disinhibition (tendency to overeat) when faced with food cues, as well as less pain and a more positive body image “at any weight, shape, or size,” Suzanne Phelan, MD, PhD, reported.

Dr. Phelan, from the department of kinesiology and public health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, presented the study in an Obesity symposium at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, and it was simultaneously published in the journal. The study was selected as one of five top papers submitted to the journal to coincide with the meeting.

Future interventions to prevent weight regain should target overeating in response to internal and external food cues and declines in self-monitoring and body image, Dr. Phelan said.

The study aimed to identify behaviors that might predict who might “beat the odds” and sustain long-term weight loss, she said in an interview.

The findings suggest that the people who maintained their weight loss had developed skills to help them cope with cravings and not respond by eating, she said. Continued self-monitoring and body acceptance and appreciation (all body sizes are beautiful) were key elements of successful weight-loss maintenance.
 

No antiobesity drugs or surgery; don’t forget behavioral stuff

Importantly, although 43% of the study participants regained more than five pounds during this 1-year study, they still remained at 18% below their starting weight, “indicating that they were largely successful at weight loss,” Dr. Phelan said.

Michael D. Jensen, MD, editor-in-chief of Obesity, echoed this.

The researchers “did find some weak predictors of success,” said Dr. Jensen, from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “But perhaps as important,” he said, “was that at the end of the trial, even those who had regained some slight weight still had 18% weight loss – which is not trivial – after, on average, 4.5 years with a standard commercial weight management program.

“At every talk I go to here,” the message is, “Let’s stampede towards use of the drugs and skip diet and exercise and behavioral stuff,” he observed. “I would argue,” he said, “that when it works, it works really well, and it’s free. So this idea that we shouldn’t even try it, because we know it’s going to fail, is wrong.

“If you have the right group, they have a decent chance of having a sufficiently good response that you don’t have to give the medications and you don’t have to send them for bariatric surgery.

“Once you learn from these programs what to do, you’re not paying $1,000 a month for a drug and you haven’t had bariatric surgery,” Dr. Jensen noted. “Their 3 years of follow-up of WeightWatchers cost less than 1 month worth of one of these [antiobesity medications].”

The predictive findings were like ‘”icing on the cake,” he said. Anybody can find five people who’ve done well with therapy, but this study was in more than 2,800 people who did well with a commercial program that is not expensive.
 

Study design and findings

Between 2019 and 2020, WeightWatchers invited adult members who had maintained weight loss of at least 9.1 kg (20 lb) for at least 1 year to participate in this study.

Of 7,025 participants who entered the study, 4,004 individuals (57%) who did not complete the 1-year questionnaires and others with implausible weight were excluded, leaving a final sample of 2,843 participants.

Most participants were women (92%), non-Hispanic White (95%), married (92%), and college educated. They had a mean age of 56 years.

On average, the participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 35.9 kg/m² (grade 2 obesity) at the start of the WeightWatchers program and a BMI of 26.7 when they entered the current study.

At the 1-year follow-up, 57% of the participants had maintained the same weight (within 2.3 kg) as when they enrolled in the study, and 43% had gained ≥ 2.3 kg.

On average, the weight-loss maintainers had gained 0.4 kg (0.88 lb). The weight gainers had gained 7.2 kg (15.9 lb) but were still 19.1 kg (42.1 lb) below the weight they had when they started the WeightWatchers program.

At baseline, compared with the weight gainers, the weight-loss maintainers were on average older (58 vs. 52 years), had a lower initial BMI (26 vs. 28), and had longer duration of weight loss maintenance (4 vs. 3 years).

At 1 year, those who had maintained their weight loss had greater self-monitoring, psychological coping, physical activity strategies, dietary choice strategies, and eating and physical activity habits, and they had less eating initiation in the absence of hunger.

They also had less disinhibition, more willingness to ignore cravings and accept food urges, more future orientation, more mindfulness, more positive body image and body satisfaction, better general health and mental health, and less bodily pain.

This research was supported by a grant to Dr. Phelan from WeightWatchers (WW) International, and three study authors are employees and shareholders of the company. Dr. Jensen discloses consulting for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and for Seattle Gummy Co.

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

Whether you’ve decided to retire, relocate, or work for your local hospital, unwinding your practice will take time. Physicians can avoid mistakes by planning ahead and making a checklist for what to do and when to do it.

“Doctors shouldn’t assume everything takes care of itself. Many don’t think about compliance issues, patient abandonment, or accounts receivable that they need to keep open to collect from billing, which can occur months after the dates of service,” said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare management consultants in Pennsylvania.

Debra Phairas, president of Practice and Liability Consultants, LLC, in California, suggests doctors start planning for the closing of their practice at least 90-120 days from their closing date.

“Many people and entities need to be notified,” said Ms. Phairas. The list includes patients, payers, vendors, employees, licensing boards, and federal and state agencies.

Medical societies may have specific bylaws that apply; malpractice carriers have rules about how long you should retain medical records; and some state laws require that you communicate that you’re closing in a newspaper, Mr. Zetter added.

Ms. Phairas recommends that physicians decide first whether they will sell their practice or if they’ll just shut it down. If they sell and the buyer is a doctor, they may want to provide transition assistance such as introducing patients and staff, she said. Otherwise, doctors may need to terminate their staff.

After doctors make that decision, Mr. Zetter and Ms. Phairas recommend taking these 12 steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly.
 

What to do 60-90 days out

1. Check your insurance contracts. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires physicians to notify them 90 days after deciding to retire or withdraw from Medicare or Medicaid. Other payers may also require 90 days’ notice to terminate their contracts.

You’ll also need to provide payers with a forwarding address for sending payments after the office closes, and notify your malpractice insurance carrier and any other contracted insurance carriers such as workers’ compensation or employee benefit plans.

2. Buy “tail” coverage. Doctors can be sued for malpractice years after they close their practice so this provides coverage against claims reported after the liability policy expires.

3. Check your hospital contracts. Most hospitals where you have privileges require 90 days’ notice that you are closing the practice.

4. Arrange for safe storage of medical records. If you are selling your practice to another physician, that doctor can take charge of them, as long as you obtain a patient’s consent to transfer the medical records, said Ms. Phairas. Otherwise, the practice is required to make someone the guardian of the records after the practice closes, said Mr. Zetter. This allows patients at a later date to obtain copies of their records at a cost.

“This usually means printing all the records to PDF to be retained; otherwise, doctors have to continue to pay the license fee for the EMR software to access the records, and no practice is going to continue to pay this indefinitely,” said Mr. Zetter.

Check with your malpractice insurance carrier for how long they require medical records to be retained, which may vary for adult and pediatric records.

Ms. Phairas also advises doctors to keep their original records. “The biggest mistake doctors can make is to give patients all their records. Your chart is your best defense weapon in a liability claim.”
 

What to do 30-60 days out

5. Tell your staff. They should not hear that you’re retiring or leaving the practice from other people, said Ms. Phairas. But timing is important. “If you notify them too soon, they may look for another job. I recommend telling them about 45 days out and just before you notify patients, although you may want to tell the office manager sooner.”

Doctors may need help closing the practice and should consider offering the employees a severance bonus to stay until the end, said Ms. Phairas. If they do leave sooner, then you can hire temporary staff.

6. Notify patients to avoid any claims of abandonment. You should notify all active patients, which, depending on your state, can be any patient the physician has treated sometime in the past 12-36 months.

Some state laws require the notice to be published as an advertisement in the local newspaper and will say how far in advance it needs to be published and how long the ad needs to run. Notification also should be posted throughout the practice, and patients who call or visit should be given oral reminders.

“Your biggest expense will be mailing a letter to all patients,” said Mr. Zetter. The letter should include:

• The date of closing.
• The name(s) of the physicians taking over the practice (if applicable).
• Local physicians who would be willing to accept new patients.
• Instructions for how patients can obtain or transfer medical records (with a deadline for submitting record requests).
• How to contact the practice if patients and families have any concerns about the closing.

7. Notify your professional associations. These include your state medical board, credentialing organizations, and professional memberships. It’s critical to renew your license even if you plan to practice in other states. He recalled that one doctor let his license lapse and the medical board notified Medicaid that he was no longer licensed. “CMS went after him because he didn’t notify them that he was no longer operating in Washington. CMS shut him down in every state/territory. This interventional radiologist spent 3 years with two attorneys to get it resolved,” said Mr. Zetter.

8. Terminate any leases with landlords or try to negotiate renting the office space on a month-to-month basis until you close or sell, suggests Ms. Phairas. If the practice owns the space, the partners will need to decide if the space will be sold or leased to a new business.
 

What to do 30 days out

9. Notify referring physicians of when you plan to close your practice so they don’t send new patients after that date.

10. Send a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency to deactivate your license if you plan not to write another prescription and after you have safely disposed of prescription drugs following the federal guidelines. Destroy all prescription pads and contact drug representatives to determine what to do with unused samples, if needed.

11. Notify all vendors. Inform medical suppliers, office suppliers, collection agencies, laundry services, housekeeping services, hazardous waste disposal services, and any other vendors. Make sure to request a final statement from them so you can close out your accounts.

12. Process your accounts receivable to collect money owed to you. Consider employing a collection agency or staff member to reconcile accounts after the practice has closed.

Mr. Zetter also suggested retaining a certified accountant to handle the expenses for shutting down the business and to handle your future tax returns. “If you shut down the practice in 2023, you will still have to file a tax return for that year in 2024,” he said.

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

Whether you’ve decided to retire, relocate, or work for your local hospital, unwinding your practice will take time. Physicians can avoid mistakes by planning ahead and making a checklist for what to do and when to do it.

“Doctors shouldn’t assume everything takes care of itself. Many don’t think about compliance issues, patient abandonment, or accounts receivable that they need to keep open to collect from billing, which can occur months after the dates of service,” said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare management consultants in Pennsylvania.

Debra Phairas, president of Practice and Liability Consultants, LLC, in California, suggests doctors start planning for the closing of their practice at least 90-120 days from their closing date.

“Many people and entities need to be notified,” said Ms. Phairas. The list includes patients, payers, vendors, employees, licensing boards, and federal and state agencies.

Medical societies may have specific bylaws that apply; malpractice carriers have rules about how long you should retain medical records; and some state laws require that you communicate that you’re closing in a newspaper, Mr. Zetter added.

Ms. Phairas recommends that physicians decide first whether they will sell their practice or if they’ll just shut it down. If they sell and the buyer is a doctor, they may want to provide transition assistance such as introducing patients and staff, she said. Otherwise, doctors may need to terminate their staff.

After doctors make that decision, Mr. Zetter and Ms. Phairas recommend taking these 12 steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly.
 

What to do 60-90 days out

1. Check your insurance contracts. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires physicians to notify them 90 days after deciding to retire or withdraw from Medicare or Medicaid. Other payers may also require 90 days’ notice to terminate their contracts.

You’ll also need to provide payers with a forwarding address for sending payments after the office closes, and notify your malpractice insurance carrier and any other contracted insurance carriers such as workers’ compensation or employee benefit plans.

2. Buy “tail” coverage. Doctors can be sued for malpractice years after they close their practice so this provides coverage against claims reported after the liability policy expires.

3. Check your hospital contracts. Most hospitals where you have privileges require 90 days’ notice that you are closing the practice.

4. Arrange for safe storage of medical records. If you are selling your practice to another physician, that doctor can take charge of them, as long as you obtain a patient’s consent to transfer the medical records, said Ms. Phairas. Otherwise, the practice is required to make someone the guardian of the records after the practice closes, said Mr. Zetter. This allows patients at a later date to obtain copies of their records at a cost.

“This usually means printing all the records to PDF to be retained; otherwise, doctors have to continue to pay the license fee for the EMR software to access the records, and no practice is going to continue to pay this indefinitely,” said Mr. Zetter.

Check with your malpractice insurance carrier for how long they require medical records to be retained, which may vary for adult and pediatric records.

Ms. Phairas also advises doctors to keep their original records. “The biggest mistake doctors can make is to give patients all their records. Your chart is your best defense weapon in a liability claim.”
 

What to do 30-60 days out

5. Tell your staff. They should not hear that you’re retiring or leaving the practice from other people, said Ms. Phairas. But timing is important. “If you notify them too soon, they may look for another job. I recommend telling them about 45 days out and just before you notify patients, although you may want to tell the office manager sooner.”

Doctors may need help closing the practice and should consider offering the employees a severance bonus to stay until the end, said Ms. Phairas. If they do leave sooner, then you can hire temporary staff.

6. Notify patients to avoid any claims of abandonment. You should notify all active patients, which, depending on your state, can be any patient the physician has treated sometime in the past 12-36 months.

Some state laws require the notice to be published as an advertisement in the local newspaper and will say how far in advance it needs to be published and how long the ad needs to run. Notification also should be posted throughout the practice, and patients who call or visit should be given oral reminders.

“Your biggest expense will be mailing a letter to all patients,” said Mr. Zetter. The letter should include:

• The date of closing.
• The name(s) of the physicians taking over the practice (if applicable).
• Local physicians who would be willing to accept new patients.
• Instructions for how patients can obtain or transfer medical records (with a deadline for submitting record requests).
• How to contact the practice if patients and families have any concerns about the closing.

7. Notify your professional associations. These include your state medical board, credentialing organizations, and professional memberships. It’s critical to renew your license even if you plan to practice in other states. He recalled that one doctor let his license lapse and the medical board notified Medicaid that he was no longer licensed. “CMS went after him because he didn’t notify them that he was no longer operating in Washington. CMS shut him down in every state/territory. This interventional radiologist spent 3 years with two attorneys to get it resolved,” said Mr. Zetter.

8. Terminate any leases with landlords or try to negotiate renting the office space on a month-to-month basis until you close or sell, suggests Ms. Phairas. If the practice owns the space, the partners will need to decide if the space will be sold or leased to a new business.
 

What to do 30 days out

9. Notify referring physicians of when you plan to close your practice so they don’t send new patients after that date.

10. Send a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency to deactivate your license if you plan not to write another prescription and after you have safely disposed of prescription drugs following the federal guidelines. Destroy all prescription pads and contact drug representatives to determine what to do with unused samples, if needed.

11. Notify all vendors. Inform medical suppliers, office suppliers, collection agencies, laundry services, housekeeping services, hazardous waste disposal services, and any other vendors. Make sure to request a final statement from them so you can close out your accounts.

12. Process your accounts receivable to collect money owed to you. Consider employing a collection agency or staff member to reconcile accounts after the practice has closed.

Mr. Zetter also suggested retaining a certified accountant to handle the expenses for shutting down the business and to handle your future tax returns. “If you shut down the practice in 2023, you will still have to file a tax return for that year in 2024,” he said.

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

Whether you’ve decided to retire, relocate, or work for your local hospital, unwinding your practice will take time. Physicians can avoid mistakes by planning ahead and making a checklist for what to do and when to do it.

“Doctors shouldn’t assume everything takes care of itself. Many don’t think about compliance issues, patient abandonment, or accounts receivable that they need to keep open to collect from billing, which can occur months after the dates of service,” said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare management consultants in Pennsylvania.

Debra Phairas, president of Practice and Liability Consultants, LLC, in California, suggests doctors start planning for the closing of their practice at least 90-120 days from their closing date.

“Many people and entities need to be notified,” said Ms. Phairas. The list includes patients, payers, vendors, employees, licensing boards, and federal and state agencies.

Medical societies may have specific bylaws that apply; malpractice carriers have rules about how long you should retain medical records; and some state laws require that you communicate that you’re closing in a newspaper, Mr. Zetter added.

Ms. Phairas recommends that physicians decide first whether they will sell their practice or if they’ll just shut it down. If they sell and the buyer is a doctor, they may want to provide transition assistance such as introducing patients and staff, she said. Otherwise, doctors may need to terminate their staff.

After doctors make that decision, Mr. Zetter and Ms. Phairas recommend taking these 12 steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly.
 

What to do 60-90 days out

1. Check your insurance contracts. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires physicians to notify them 90 days after deciding to retire or withdraw from Medicare or Medicaid. Other payers may also require 90 days’ notice to terminate their contracts.

You’ll also need to provide payers with a forwarding address for sending payments after the office closes, and notify your malpractice insurance carrier and any other contracted insurance carriers such as workers’ compensation or employee benefit plans.

2. Buy “tail” coverage. Doctors can be sued for malpractice years after they close their practice so this provides coverage against claims reported after the liability policy expires.

3. Check your hospital contracts. Most hospitals where you have privileges require 90 days’ notice that you are closing the practice.

4. Arrange for safe storage of medical records. If you are selling your practice to another physician, that doctor can take charge of them, as long as you obtain a patient’s consent to transfer the medical records, said Ms. Phairas. Otherwise, the practice is required to make someone the guardian of the records after the practice closes, said Mr. Zetter. This allows patients at a later date to obtain copies of their records at a cost.

“This usually means printing all the records to PDF to be retained; otherwise, doctors have to continue to pay the license fee for the EMR software to access the records, and no practice is going to continue to pay this indefinitely,” said Mr. Zetter.

Check with your malpractice insurance carrier for how long they require medical records to be retained, which may vary for adult and pediatric records.

Ms. Phairas also advises doctors to keep their original records. “The biggest mistake doctors can make is to give patients all their records. Your chart is your best defense weapon in a liability claim.”
 

What to do 30-60 days out

5. Tell your staff. They should not hear that you’re retiring or leaving the practice from other people, said Ms. Phairas. But timing is important. “If you notify them too soon, they may look for another job. I recommend telling them about 45 days out and just before you notify patients, although you may want to tell the office manager sooner.”

Doctors may need help closing the practice and should consider offering the employees a severance bonus to stay until the end, said Ms. Phairas. If they do leave sooner, then you can hire temporary staff.

6. Notify patients to avoid any claims of abandonment. You should notify all active patients, which, depending on your state, can be any patient the physician has treated sometime in the past 12-36 months.

Some state laws require the notice to be published as an advertisement in the local newspaper and will say how far in advance it needs to be published and how long the ad needs to run. Notification also should be posted throughout the practice, and patients who call or visit should be given oral reminders.

“Your biggest expense will be mailing a letter to all patients,” said Mr. Zetter. The letter should include:

• The date of closing.
• The name(s) of the physicians taking over the practice (if applicable).
• Local physicians who would be willing to accept new patients.
• Instructions for how patients can obtain or transfer medical records (with a deadline for submitting record requests).
• How to contact the practice if patients and families have any concerns about the closing.

7. Notify your professional associations. These include your state medical board, credentialing organizations, and professional memberships. It’s critical to renew your license even if you plan to practice in other states. He recalled that one doctor let his license lapse and the medical board notified Medicaid that he was no longer licensed. “CMS went after him because he didn’t notify them that he was no longer operating in Washington. CMS shut him down in every state/territory. This interventional radiologist spent 3 years with two attorneys to get it resolved,” said Mr. Zetter.

8. Terminate any leases with landlords or try to negotiate renting the office space on a month-to-month basis until you close or sell, suggests Ms. Phairas. If the practice owns the space, the partners will need to decide if the space will be sold or leased to a new business.
 

What to do 30 days out

9. Notify referring physicians of when you plan to close your practice so they don’t send new patients after that date.

10. Send a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency to deactivate your license if you plan not to write another prescription and after you have safely disposed of prescription drugs following the federal guidelines. Destroy all prescription pads and contact drug representatives to determine what to do with unused samples, if needed.

11. Notify all vendors. Inform medical suppliers, office suppliers, collection agencies, laundry services, housekeeping services, hazardous waste disposal services, and any other vendors. Make sure to request a final statement from them so you can close out your accounts.

12. Process your accounts receivable to collect money owed to you. Consider employing a collection agency or staff member to reconcile accounts after the practice has closed.

Mr. Zetter also suggested retaining a certified accountant to handle the expenses for shutting down the business and to handle your future tax returns. “If you shut down the practice in 2023, you will still have to file a tax return for that year in 2024,” he said.

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