MDedge Family Medicine

This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. As the FDA announcement notes, patients with anaphylaxis at times “delay or avoid” anaphylaxis “treatment due to fear of injections.” Neffy was approved on the basis of pharmacokinetic studies. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine. 

The Need for Neffy

It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy. 

I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away. 

Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine. 

My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute. 

The potential benefits of neffy are clear: 

• It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
• It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
• It cannot be injected incorrectly. 
• Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
• There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).

Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions

As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
 

Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery

It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied. 

Insurance Coverage

As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both. 

In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
 

Conclusion

Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives. 

Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. 

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

This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. As the FDA announcement notes, patients with anaphylaxis at times “delay or avoid” anaphylaxis “treatment due to fear of injections.” Neffy was approved on the basis of pharmacokinetic studies. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine. 

The Need for Neffy

It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy. 

I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away. 

Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine. 

My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute. 

The potential benefits of neffy are clear: 

• It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
• It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
• It cannot be injected incorrectly. 
• Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
• There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).

Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions

As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
 

Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery

It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied. 

Insurance Coverage

As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both. 

In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
 

Conclusion

Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives. 

Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. 

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

This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. As the FDA announcement notes, patients with anaphylaxis at times “delay or avoid” anaphylaxis “treatment due to fear of injections.” Neffy was approved on the basis of pharmacokinetic studies. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine. 

The Need for Neffy

It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy. 

I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away. 

Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine. 

My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute. 

The potential benefits of neffy are clear: 

• It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
• It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
• It cannot be injected incorrectly. 
• Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
• There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).

Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions

As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
 

Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery

It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied. 

Insurance Coverage

As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both. 

In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
 

Conclusion

Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives. 

Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. 

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

I’ve worked locum tenens off and on since 1982. Flexible schedules allowed me to write several books, pursue a parallel career as a medical journalist, lead medical missions in the Philippines, and develop modest expertise as an underwater photographer.

But the recent rise in locum tenens practitioners signals trouble for medicine.
 

A Multibillion-Dollar Industry

Roughly 52,000 US doctors work locum tenens full or part time. In annual reports by CHG Healthcare, two thirds of healthcare facilities surveyed report using locums and more than half expect to maintain or increase their use in 2024.

Another measure of the industry’s growth is that membership of The National Association of Locum Tenens Organizations (NALTO), formed in 2001 to lead this fledgling industry, has doubled since 2019. Currently, NALTO has 148 member agencies.
 

Why Locums?

What used to be the preserve of older physicians transitioning to retirement is now becoming a career choice. According to the 2024 Survey of Locum Tenens Physicians and Advanced Practice Professionals by AMN Healthcare, 81% of respondents said they started taking locum tenens assignments immediately after finishing medical training or in mid-career. What entices doctors to move from place to place, repeatedly adapt to new facilities and electronic medical records, live in cheap hotels, and work without paid vacations, health insurance, or retirement benefits? 

Supplemental income is one reason. But the elephant in the room is clearly burnout. Rates of burnout in practicing doctors and physicians-in-training have exceeded 50%. Burnout results in medical errors, malpractice suits, and increased healthcare costs. 

A recent Doximity poll of 7590 physicians revealed that 63% would not want their children to pursue a medical career. And in a Medscape survey of 7000 physicians, a third of docs under 40 would not choose medicine again if they had a do-over. If a career in medicine brings high income and privileged status, why do so many physicians regret it and discourage their children from taking the same path?
 

Where Is Marcus Welby, MD?

Private practice is an endangered species that no one is trying to save. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 44% of physicians owned their practices compared with 76% of physicians in the 1980s. Even fewer younger physicians are choosing private practice. Among physicians under 45 years of age, only 32% owned their practices. Most physicians are now employees, not employers. They have lost control over their duties and work hours. 

In 2022, barely 13% of physicians were in solo practice. The iconic Dr Marcus Welby of the 1970s TV series has transmuted from an idealized physician to an implausible figure. (My medical students have never heard of him.)

Hospitals and health systems have purchased many private medical groups. Private-equity companies own close to 1000 physician practices and staff up to 40% of emergency rooms. For these firms, profits are paramount.
 

Canary in a Coal Mine

Locum tenens offers physicians unprecedented flexibility where they work, when they work, and how much they work. It provides an escape from overwhelming and unsatisfying clinical practice. While some physicians have fled to nonclinical careers, locums physicians can practice medicine without the burdens of administration, hospital politics, and ever-increasing overhead. 

The locum tenens paradox is that its successful growth indicates a deteriorating traditional healthcare model. Locum tenens is not the problem, but it’s also not the solution. At best, locums is a pair of crutches that helps the current system limp along.

Healthcare is increasingly controlled by those who prioritize profit, not patients. If physicians become nothing more than complicit cogs in a dysfunctional system, burnout will fester. The profession will fail to attract the best and the brightest, the doctor shortage will increase, and the quality of patient care will decline. Everyone will suffer. 

It’s already happening.

Andrew Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. He reported conflicts of interest from Accordant Health Services.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

As primary care doctors, lifestyle medicine is supposed to be a pillar of our practice. Per the evidence, lifestyle medicine can prevent up to 80% of chronic disease. It’s a real irony, then, that it’s the thing we’re least likely to be paid to do.

Thankfully, though, there are a few hacks to help you keep your patients healthy and yourself financially healthy at the same time.

No. 1: Be as accurate in your coding as possible. We all know working on things like sleep, exercise, and diet with patients takes time, so bill for it. With time-based billing, in particular, you can account for both the time spent in face-to-face encounters and the time spent afterward on documentation and care coordination. Make sure to capture that.

No. 2: Try group visits on for size. Group visit models are great for lifestyle medicine. They give you the flexibility to include longer conversations and deeper lessons on a range of subjects while still getting paid for what you do. Want to host a cooking class? Group visit. Want to bring in a personal trainer or hold a dance class or exercise dance class? Group visit. Meditation, yoga, or even a sleep hygiene class? Group visit. 

While there are a few tricks to getting paid for group visits, they’re the same things, such as documenting time and the various parts of the visit, that are key to getting paid for regular visits. They have the bonus of fighting burnout and making your own practice more meaningful as well.

No. 3: Think about joining a value-based care arrangement. While only accounting for 10% of the market right now, value-based care (VBC) is growing rapidly, and it’s easy to see why. By trading quality for the hamster wheel of billing widgets, physicians are freed up to think more about how best to take care of patients, including incorporating more lifestyle medicine. Some VBC models even have their own electronic medical records, freeing you from outdated structures when it comes to documenting patient visits.

No. 4: direct primary care. Direct primary care cuts out the middlemen of payers, letting patients pay physician practices directly for their own care. Like VBC, it opens up possibilities for practicing better medicine, including lifestyle medicine. In addition, it’s often very affordable, with a family of four often paying around $80 a month for a membership for the entire family. It’s a win-win for the doctor and the patient. 

Lifestyle medicine is a great way to improve both your patients’ and your own well-being. With a few flexes, it can improve your wallet’s well-being, too.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, President/CEO, Happiness by the Numbers, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

As primary care doctors, lifestyle medicine is supposed to be a pillar of our practice. Per the evidence, lifestyle medicine can prevent up to 80% of chronic disease. It’s a real irony, then, that it’s the thing we’re least likely to be paid to do.

Thankfully, though, there are a few hacks to help you keep your patients healthy and yourself financially healthy at the same time.

No. 1: Be as accurate in your coding as possible. We all know working on things like sleep, exercise, and diet with patients takes time, so bill for it. With time-based billing, in particular, you can account for both the time spent in face-to-face encounters and the time spent afterward on documentation and care coordination. Make sure to capture that.

No. 2: Try group visits on for size. Group visit models are great for lifestyle medicine. They give you the flexibility to include longer conversations and deeper lessons on a range of subjects while still getting paid for what you do. Want to host a cooking class? Group visit. Want to bring in a personal trainer or hold a dance class or exercise dance class? Group visit. Meditation, yoga, or even a sleep hygiene class? Group visit. 

While there are a few tricks to getting paid for group visits, they’re the same things, such as documenting time and the various parts of the visit, that are key to getting paid for regular visits. They have the bonus of fighting burnout and making your own practice more meaningful as well.

No. 3: Think about joining a value-based care arrangement. While only accounting for 10% of the market right now, value-based care (VBC) is growing rapidly, and it’s easy to see why. By trading quality for the hamster wheel of billing widgets, physicians are freed up to think more about how best to take care of patients, including incorporating more lifestyle medicine. Some VBC models even have their own electronic medical records, freeing you from outdated structures when it comes to documenting patient visits.

No. 4: direct primary care. Direct primary care cuts out the middlemen of payers, letting patients pay physician practices directly for their own care. Like VBC, it opens up possibilities for practicing better medicine, including lifestyle medicine. In addition, it’s often very affordable, with a family of four often paying around $80 a month for a membership for the entire family. It’s a win-win for the doctor and the patient. 

Lifestyle medicine is a great way to improve both your patients’ and your own well-being. With a few flexes, it can improve your wallet’s well-being, too.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, President/CEO, Happiness by the Numbers, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

As primary care doctors, lifestyle medicine is supposed to be a pillar of our practice. Per the evidence, lifestyle medicine can prevent up to 80% of chronic disease. It’s a real irony, then, that it’s the thing we’re least likely to be paid to do.

Thankfully, though, there are a few hacks to help you keep your patients healthy and yourself financially healthy at the same time.

No. 1: Be as accurate in your coding as possible. We all know working on things like sleep, exercise, and diet with patients takes time, so bill for it. With time-based billing, in particular, you can account for both the time spent in face-to-face encounters and the time spent afterward on documentation and care coordination. Make sure to capture that.

No. 2: Try group visits on for size. Group visit models are great for lifestyle medicine. They give you the flexibility to include longer conversations and deeper lessons on a range of subjects while still getting paid for what you do. Want to host a cooking class? Group visit. Want to bring in a personal trainer or hold a dance class or exercise dance class? Group visit. Meditation, yoga, or even a sleep hygiene class? Group visit. 

While there are a few tricks to getting paid for group visits, they’re the same things, such as documenting time and the various parts of the visit, that are key to getting paid for regular visits. They have the bonus of fighting burnout and making your own practice more meaningful as well.

No. 3: Think about joining a value-based care arrangement. While only accounting for 10% of the market right now, value-based care (VBC) is growing rapidly, and it’s easy to see why. By trading quality for the hamster wheel of billing widgets, physicians are freed up to think more about how best to take care of patients, including incorporating more lifestyle medicine. Some VBC models even have their own electronic medical records, freeing you from outdated structures when it comes to documenting patient visits.

No. 4: direct primary care. Direct primary care cuts out the middlemen of payers, letting patients pay physician practices directly for their own care. Like VBC, it opens up possibilities for practicing better medicine, including lifestyle medicine. In addition, it’s often very affordable, with a family of four often paying around $80 a month for a membership for the entire family. It’s a win-win for the doctor and the patient. 

Lifestyle medicine is a great way to improve both your patients’ and your own well-being. With a few flexes, it can improve your wallet’s well-being, too.

Tamaan K. Osbourne-Roberts, President/CEO, Happiness by the Numbers, Denver, Colorado, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

People with central obesity (CO), characterized by excess fat around the abdomen, are at a greater risk for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), particularly those who are younger than 60 years or without a history of hysterectomy. Also, women who have overweight but do not have CO are at greater risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to estimate the association between CO and general obesity and the risk for POP in individuals using the UK Biobank.
• A total of 251,143 participants (median age, 57 years) without preexisting POP were included, of whom 60.9% were postmenopausal and 17.2% had undergone hysterectomy before enrollment.
• Participants were followed for a median duration of 13.8 years, and POP cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes.
• Waist circumference, height, and body weight were measured at enrollment for the calculation of waist/height ratio and body mass index (BMI); CO was defined as a waist/height ratio ≥ 0.5.
• The relative risk of POP for the various combinations of waist/height ratio and BMI was evaluated against the reference group (waist/height ratio < 0.5; BMI < 25) using Cox proportional hazards models.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, 9781 cases of POP were identified, of which 71.2% occurred in a single pelvic compartment.
• Around 21.7% of all POP cases were attributable to CO; 2% were attributable to being overweight without CO.
• The risk for POP was 48% higher in individuals with CO regardless of BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.56) and 23% higher in those who had overweight without CO (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34).
• The association between POP and CO was further strengthened in individuals who were younger than 60 years and those without a history of hysterectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that waist/height ratio combined with BMI could help differentiate individuals with varying risks of prolapse more accurately. Among individuals within the same BMI category, waist/height ratio can vary, with those having a higher ratio generally facing a greater risk of POP, compared with those with a normal ratio. Therefore, they should not be grouped together based solely on a single measure of obesity. In addition, this combination can help identify more individuals at high risk for POP, compared with using either alone,” the study authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Keyi Si, PhD, of Tongji University in Shanghai, China, and was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in healthcare-seeking behavior could have biased the association between obesity and risk for POP, as individuals with obesity may have been less likely to notice or report symptoms of POP. The diagnosis of POP was according to ICD-10 codes rather than physical examination, which may have affected accuracy. Other limitations included missing data on delivery mode and history of constipation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, the Shanghai Hospital Development Center, and the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People with central obesity (CO), characterized by excess fat around the abdomen, are at a greater risk for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), particularly those who are younger than 60 years or without a history of hysterectomy. Also, women who have overweight but do not have CO are at greater risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to estimate the association between CO and general obesity and the risk for POP in individuals using the UK Biobank.
• A total of 251,143 participants (median age, 57 years) without preexisting POP were included, of whom 60.9% were postmenopausal and 17.2% had undergone hysterectomy before enrollment.
• Participants were followed for a median duration of 13.8 years, and POP cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes.
• Waist circumference, height, and body weight were measured at enrollment for the calculation of waist/height ratio and body mass index (BMI); CO was defined as a waist/height ratio ≥ 0.5.
• The relative risk of POP for the various combinations of waist/height ratio and BMI was evaluated against the reference group (waist/height ratio < 0.5; BMI < 25) using Cox proportional hazards models.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, 9781 cases of POP were identified, of which 71.2% occurred in a single pelvic compartment.
• Around 21.7% of all POP cases were attributable to CO; 2% were attributable to being overweight without CO.
• The risk for POP was 48% higher in individuals with CO regardless of BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.56) and 23% higher in those who had overweight without CO (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34).
• The association between POP and CO was further strengthened in individuals who were younger than 60 years and those without a history of hysterectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that waist/height ratio combined with BMI could help differentiate individuals with varying risks of prolapse more accurately. Among individuals within the same BMI category, waist/height ratio can vary, with those having a higher ratio generally facing a greater risk of POP, compared with those with a normal ratio. Therefore, they should not be grouped together based solely on a single measure of obesity. In addition, this combination can help identify more individuals at high risk for POP, compared with using either alone,” the study authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Keyi Si, PhD, of Tongji University in Shanghai, China, and was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in healthcare-seeking behavior could have biased the association between obesity and risk for POP, as individuals with obesity may have been less likely to notice or report symptoms of POP. The diagnosis of POP was according to ICD-10 codes rather than physical examination, which may have affected accuracy. Other limitations included missing data on delivery mode and history of constipation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, the Shanghai Hospital Development Center, and the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

People with central obesity (CO), characterized by excess fat around the abdomen, are at a greater risk for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), particularly those who are younger than 60 years or without a history of hysterectomy. Also, women who have overweight but do not have CO are at greater risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to estimate the association between CO and general obesity and the risk for POP in individuals using the UK Biobank.
• A total of 251,143 participants (median age, 57 years) without preexisting POP were included, of whom 60.9% were postmenopausal and 17.2% had undergone hysterectomy before enrollment.
• Participants were followed for a median duration of 13.8 years, and POP cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes.
• Waist circumference, height, and body weight were measured at enrollment for the calculation of waist/height ratio and body mass index (BMI); CO was defined as a waist/height ratio ≥ 0.5.
• The relative risk of POP for the various combinations of waist/height ratio and BMI was evaluated against the reference group (waist/height ratio < 0.5; BMI < 25) using Cox proportional hazards models.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, 9781 cases of POP were identified, of which 71.2% occurred in a single pelvic compartment.
• Around 21.7% of all POP cases were attributable to CO; 2% were attributable to being overweight without CO.
• The risk for POP was 48% higher in individuals with CO regardless of BMI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.56) and 23% higher in those who had overweight without CO (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34).
• The association between POP and CO was further strengthened in individuals who were younger than 60 years and those without a history of hysterectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that waist/height ratio combined with BMI could help differentiate individuals with varying risks of prolapse more accurately. Among individuals within the same BMI category, waist/height ratio can vary, with those having a higher ratio generally facing a greater risk of POP, compared with those with a normal ratio. Therefore, they should not be grouped together based solely on a single measure of obesity. In addition, this combination can help identify more individuals at high risk for POP, compared with using either alone,” the study authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Keyi Si, PhD, of Tongji University in Shanghai, China, and was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in healthcare-seeking behavior could have biased the association between obesity and risk for POP, as individuals with obesity may have been less likely to notice or report symptoms of POP. The diagnosis of POP was according to ICD-10 codes rather than physical examination, which may have affected accuracy. Other limitations included missing data on delivery mode and history of constipation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, the Shanghai Hospital Development Center, and the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Despite the prevalence of obesity in primary care, there appear to be major knowledge gaps among providers regarding obesity management, new research suggests. 

Anonymous surveys of 96 primary care providers at a Boston, Massachusetts, safety-net hospital revealed that participants had limited understanding of criteria for prescribing antiobesity medications (AOM), and expressed discomfort in prescribing AOMs because of knowledge concerns, especially for non–glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. One third reported that they didn’t prescribe AOMs, and rates of referral for bariatric surgery were also low. 

The findings were presented at the Obesity Society’s annual Obesity Week meeting by Alejandro Campos, MD, a third-year resident in the section of internal medicine, Boston Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, Boston University. 

“I think it comes down to education. ... Not only training primary care physicians or residents about criteria and pathophysiology, but also stigma. Perceptions need to be addressed from the start of training in the healthcare field,” Campos told this news organization in an interview.

During his presentation, Campos noted this is the first such study in the setting of a safety-net hospital, which cares for lower-income people who experience disproportionate rates of obesity. But, “these findings are similar to ones observed from non–safety-net settings, which can indicate some potential transferability.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told this news organization that the findings didn’t surprise him. “I’d say that medical education around obesity has definitely improved, and training is improving but it’s not uniform. The treatment of obesity as a disease, especially with some of the newer medical treatments, is not standard of care and practiced widely.”

The study involved a standard-model Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices questionnaire, distributed electronically for anonymous responses among both trained and in-training primary care providers. It contained a total of 43 items, 7 of them demographic, 11 on knowledge, 9 regarding attitudes, and 16 asking about practices.

The hospital is the largest safety-net hospital in New England, with a patient population that includes 58% enrolled in Medicaid, 32% Black/African American individuals, 24% identifying as Hispanic/Latino individuals, and 37% living below the poverty line.

The 96 responding providers (from a total 350 invited) all worked in either family medicine or internal medicine. The trained providers included both attending MDs and nurse practitioners, while those in-training were residents in one of those two specialties. Two thirds were women. The majority were aged 20-30 years (49.45%) or 31-40 years (27.47%).

Overall, 73.63% reported having received some type of obesity training. Just over half (52.08%) reported receiving that training during medical or nursing school, while 43.75% reported receiving it during residency.

When asked to choose from a list of conditions to pick which are considered weight-related comorbidities, between 80% and 90% choose type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and coronary artery disease. Fewer, but still a majority, also listed osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, respondents were less likely to cite cancer, mood disorders, or chronic kidney disease as being related to obesity.

Asked to list benefits of a 10% body weight loss, most recognized reductions in OSA, glycemia, cardiovascular disease risk, osteoarthritis, and hepatic steatosis. But, only about half knew weight loss could also improve urinary incontinence.

Only 25% could correctly name both indications for AOMs. Just 27.1% knew that one was a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 with comorbidities, while 46.9% knew BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities was an AOM indication. Only 9.4% were correct on both of those indications for bariatric surgery.

“Reassuringly,” Campos said, the majority either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that “lack of will power” contributes to obesity. However, more than 20% agreed that “lack of exercise or physical activity” contributed.

Overall, 73% of the trained providers and 59% of those in training reported that they prescribe AOMs. Asked about their comfort level in prescribing specific types of AOMs, many more endorsed semaglutide and liraglutide than older medications such as bupropion/naltrexone and phentermine/topiramate.

Asked about factors that influence their comfort with prescribing AOMs, the top five factors selected, in order, were side-effect knowledge, insurance coverage, safety issues, and dosing knowledge. Fewer respondents endorsed “patient’s ideas, concerns, and expectations,” cost, or efficacy.

Referrals to nutrition services were endorsed more often than to obesity medicine specialists or bariatric surgery.

Asked about barriers to obesity treatment in their practices, “time constraints” was the most frequently endorsed, followed by “lack of training or knowledge,” “patient adherence and motivation,” and “limited resources.”

“What are the future directives? We feel we have the need to provide ongoing obesity management, education and assistance to primary care providers, including support for securing coverage for treatments,” Campos said.

He added that Boston Medical Center is now developing and implementing an embedded weight management program within primary care “to assist the front line of obesity care.”

Asked by this news organization whether he believes the rise of GLP-1 drugs will make a difference, Campos said “Definitely, I think with that momentum obesity medicine as a whole will gain more attention and hopefully more implementation in the curricula for medical and nursing schools, because in the end it requires a multidisciplinary approach.”

Campos and Clark had no disclosures.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Despite the prevalence of obesity in primary care, there appear to be major knowledge gaps among providers regarding obesity management, new research suggests. 

Anonymous surveys of 96 primary care providers at a Boston, Massachusetts, safety-net hospital revealed that participants had limited understanding of criteria for prescribing antiobesity medications (AOM), and expressed discomfort in prescribing AOMs because of knowledge concerns, especially for non–glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. One third reported that they didn’t prescribe AOMs, and rates of referral for bariatric surgery were also low. 

The findings were presented at the Obesity Society’s annual Obesity Week meeting by Alejandro Campos, MD, a third-year resident in the section of internal medicine, Boston Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, Boston University. 

“I think it comes down to education. ... Not only training primary care physicians or residents about criteria and pathophysiology, but also stigma. Perceptions need to be addressed from the start of training in the healthcare field,” Campos told this news organization in an interview.

During his presentation, Campos noted this is the first such study in the setting of a safety-net hospital, which cares for lower-income people who experience disproportionate rates of obesity. But, “these findings are similar to ones observed from non–safety-net settings, which can indicate some potential transferability.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told this news organization that the findings didn’t surprise him. “I’d say that medical education around obesity has definitely improved, and training is improving but it’s not uniform. The treatment of obesity as a disease, especially with some of the newer medical treatments, is not standard of care and practiced widely.”

The study involved a standard-model Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices questionnaire, distributed electronically for anonymous responses among both trained and in-training primary care providers. It contained a total of 43 items, 7 of them demographic, 11 on knowledge, 9 regarding attitudes, and 16 asking about practices.

The hospital is the largest safety-net hospital in New England, with a patient population that includes 58% enrolled in Medicaid, 32% Black/African American individuals, 24% identifying as Hispanic/Latino individuals, and 37% living below the poverty line.

The 96 responding providers (from a total 350 invited) all worked in either family medicine or internal medicine. The trained providers included both attending MDs and nurse practitioners, while those in-training were residents in one of those two specialties. Two thirds were women. The majority were aged 20-30 years (49.45%) or 31-40 years (27.47%).

Overall, 73.63% reported having received some type of obesity training. Just over half (52.08%) reported receiving that training during medical or nursing school, while 43.75% reported receiving it during residency.

When asked to choose from a list of conditions to pick which are considered weight-related comorbidities, between 80% and 90% choose type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and coronary artery disease. Fewer, but still a majority, also listed osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, respondents were less likely to cite cancer, mood disorders, or chronic kidney disease as being related to obesity.

Asked to list benefits of a 10% body weight loss, most recognized reductions in OSA, glycemia, cardiovascular disease risk, osteoarthritis, and hepatic steatosis. But, only about half knew weight loss could also improve urinary incontinence.

Only 25% could correctly name both indications for AOMs. Just 27.1% knew that one was a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 with comorbidities, while 46.9% knew BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities was an AOM indication. Only 9.4% were correct on both of those indications for bariatric surgery.

“Reassuringly,” Campos said, the majority either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that “lack of will power” contributes to obesity. However, more than 20% agreed that “lack of exercise or physical activity” contributed.

Overall, 73% of the trained providers and 59% of those in training reported that they prescribe AOMs. Asked about their comfort level in prescribing specific types of AOMs, many more endorsed semaglutide and liraglutide than older medications such as bupropion/naltrexone and phentermine/topiramate.

Asked about factors that influence their comfort with prescribing AOMs, the top five factors selected, in order, were side-effect knowledge, insurance coverage, safety issues, and dosing knowledge. Fewer respondents endorsed “patient’s ideas, concerns, and expectations,” cost, or efficacy.

Referrals to nutrition services were endorsed more often than to obesity medicine specialists or bariatric surgery.

Asked about barriers to obesity treatment in their practices, “time constraints” was the most frequently endorsed, followed by “lack of training or knowledge,” “patient adherence and motivation,” and “limited resources.”

“What are the future directives? We feel we have the need to provide ongoing obesity management, education and assistance to primary care providers, including support for securing coverage for treatments,” Campos said.

He added that Boston Medical Center is now developing and implementing an embedded weight management program within primary care “to assist the front line of obesity care.”

Asked by this news organization whether he believes the rise of GLP-1 drugs will make a difference, Campos said “Definitely, I think with that momentum obesity medicine as a whole will gain more attention and hopefully more implementation in the curricula for medical and nursing schools, because in the end it requires a multidisciplinary approach.”

Campos and Clark had no disclosures.

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

SAN ANTONIO — Despite the prevalence of obesity in primary care, there appear to be major knowledge gaps among providers regarding obesity management, new research suggests. 

Anonymous surveys of 96 primary care providers at a Boston, Massachusetts, safety-net hospital revealed that participants had limited understanding of criteria for prescribing antiobesity medications (AOM), and expressed discomfort in prescribing AOMs because of knowledge concerns, especially for non–glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. One third reported that they didn’t prescribe AOMs, and rates of referral for bariatric surgery were also low. 

The findings were presented at the Obesity Society’s annual Obesity Week meeting by Alejandro Campos, MD, a third-year resident in the section of internal medicine, Boston Medical Center, and the Department of Medicine, Boston University. 

“I think it comes down to education. ... Not only training primary care physicians or residents about criteria and pathophysiology, but also stigma. Perceptions need to be addressed from the start of training in the healthcare field,” Campos told this news organization in an interview.

During his presentation, Campos noted this is the first such study in the setting of a safety-net hospital, which cares for lower-income people who experience disproportionate rates of obesity. But, “these findings are similar to ones observed from non–safety-net settings, which can indicate some potential transferability.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, told this news organization that the findings didn’t surprise him. “I’d say that medical education around obesity has definitely improved, and training is improving but it’s not uniform. The treatment of obesity as a disease, especially with some of the newer medical treatments, is not standard of care and practiced widely.”

The study involved a standard-model Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices questionnaire, distributed electronically for anonymous responses among both trained and in-training primary care providers. It contained a total of 43 items, 7 of them demographic, 11 on knowledge, 9 regarding attitudes, and 16 asking about practices.

The hospital is the largest safety-net hospital in New England, with a patient population that includes 58% enrolled in Medicaid, 32% Black/African American individuals, 24% identifying as Hispanic/Latino individuals, and 37% living below the poverty line.

The 96 responding providers (from a total 350 invited) all worked in either family medicine or internal medicine. The trained providers included both attending MDs and nurse practitioners, while those in-training were residents in one of those two specialties. Two thirds were women. The majority were aged 20-30 years (49.45%) or 31-40 years (27.47%).

Overall, 73.63% reported having received some type of obesity training. Just over half (52.08%) reported receiving that training during medical or nursing school, while 43.75% reported receiving it during residency.

When asked to choose from a list of conditions to pick which are considered weight-related comorbidities, between 80% and 90% choose type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and coronary artery disease. Fewer, but still a majority, also listed osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, respondents were less likely to cite cancer, mood disorders, or chronic kidney disease as being related to obesity.

Asked to list benefits of a 10% body weight loss, most recognized reductions in OSA, glycemia, cardiovascular disease risk, osteoarthritis, and hepatic steatosis. But, only about half knew weight loss could also improve urinary incontinence.

Only 25% could correctly name both indications for AOMs. Just 27.1% knew that one was a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 with comorbidities, while 46.9% knew BMI ≥ 30 without comorbidities was an AOM indication. Only 9.4% were correct on both of those indications for bariatric surgery.

“Reassuringly,” Campos said, the majority either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that “lack of will power” contributes to obesity. However, more than 20% agreed that “lack of exercise or physical activity” contributed.

Overall, 73% of the trained providers and 59% of those in training reported that they prescribe AOMs. Asked about their comfort level in prescribing specific types of AOMs, many more endorsed semaglutide and liraglutide than older medications such as bupropion/naltrexone and phentermine/topiramate.

Asked about factors that influence their comfort with prescribing AOMs, the top five factors selected, in order, were side-effect knowledge, insurance coverage, safety issues, and dosing knowledge. Fewer respondents endorsed “patient’s ideas, concerns, and expectations,” cost, or efficacy.

Referrals to nutrition services were endorsed more often than to obesity medicine specialists or bariatric surgery.

Asked about barriers to obesity treatment in their practices, “time constraints” was the most frequently endorsed, followed by “lack of training or knowledge,” “patient adherence and motivation,” and “limited resources.”

“What are the future directives? We feel we have the need to provide ongoing obesity management, education and assistance to primary care providers, including support for securing coverage for treatments,” Campos said.

He added that Boston Medical Center is now developing and implementing an embedded weight management program within primary care “to assist the front line of obesity care.”

Asked by this news organization whether he believes the rise of GLP-1 drugs will make a difference, Campos said “Definitely, I think with that momentum obesity medicine as a whole will gain more attention and hopefully more implementation in the curricula for medical and nursing schools, because in the end it requires a multidisciplinary approach.”

Campos and Clark had no disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Artificial intelligence–assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) with computer-aided detection (CADe) technology may improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but it’s also associated with higher detection and removal of non-neoplastic lesions, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

In particular, AIAC led to a statistically and clinically significant increase in the proportion of exams that detected lesions that after resection were all found to be benign, compared with unassisted colonoscopy.

University of Minnesota

“The potential implications include increased procedural risks, as well as costs, such as pathology costs and other healthcare expenditures, without any additional colorectal cancer prevention benefit,” said lead author Tessa Herman, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

In a previous implementation trial at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Herman and colleagues compared ADR between a group of patients undergoing AIAC and a historical cohort of patients who had non–AI-assisted colonoscopy.

In this subsequent study, the research team conducted an ad hoc analysis of data from the previous trial to determine the proportion of colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, and positive fecal immunochemical tests which detect lesions that after resection are all found to be benign. They excluded colonoscopies conducted for diagnostic indications or inflammatory bowel disease, as well as incomplete colonoscopies, and for those with inadequate bowel preparation.

Overall, they studied 441 non-AIAC colonoscopies (between November 2022 and April 2023) and 599 AIAC colonoscopies (between May 2023 and October 2023). The groups were balanced, and there were no significant differences in patient demographics, endoscopists, AI technology, procedure time, or average number of polyps detected.

In the non-AIAC cohort, 37 cases (8.4%) had polypectomies that revealed only benign lesions, as compared with 74 cases (12.4%) in the AIAC cohort. The most common resected lesions were benign colonic mucosa, lymphoid aggregates, and hyperplastic polyps.

Applied to the 15 million colonoscopies conducted in the United States per year, the findings indicate that full adoption of AIAC could result in about 600,000 more colonoscopies in which only benign, nonadenomatous lesions are removed, compared with traditional colonoscopy, Herman said.

More study of AIAC is needed, said Daniel Pambianco, MD, managing partner of GastroHealth-Charlottesville in Virginia and the 2023 ACG president. “This technology is in a fledging stage, and the more data we have, the more helpful it’ll be to know if we’re removing the right lesions at a better rate.”

“There’s a hope that assistance will improve detection, removal of polyps, and ultimately, colon cancer,” added Pambianco, who comoderated the session on colorectal cancer prevention.

Future longitudinal studies should monitor both ADR and benign lesion resection rates with AIAC, and modeling studies could determine the benefits and costs of the technology, Herman said. In addition, development of hybrid CADe and computer-aided diagnosis systems could mitigate concerns about excessive benign lesion resection with AI tools.

Valley Medical Group

Clinicians already are able to find colon mucosa that are polypoid or lymphoid aggregates during colonoscopy without AI assistance, said the session’s comoderator, Sita Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Ridgewood, New Jersey. 

“Instead, we need a tool that can help us to not remove these polyps that are not neoplastic,” she said. “With future developments, we may be able to take it to the next step where the algorithm tells us that it’s benign and not to touch it.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Herman, Pambianco, and Chokhavatia reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Artificial intelligence–assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) with computer-aided detection (CADe) technology may improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but it’s also associated with higher detection and removal of non-neoplastic lesions, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

In particular, AIAC led to a statistically and clinically significant increase in the proportion of exams that detected lesions that after resection were all found to be benign, compared with unassisted colonoscopy.

University of Minnesota

“The potential implications include increased procedural risks, as well as costs, such as pathology costs and other healthcare expenditures, without any additional colorectal cancer prevention benefit,” said lead author Tessa Herman, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

In a previous implementation trial at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Herman and colleagues compared ADR between a group of patients undergoing AIAC and a historical cohort of patients who had non–AI-assisted colonoscopy.

In this subsequent study, the research team conducted an ad hoc analysis of data from the previous trial to determine the proportion of colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, and positive fecal immunochemical tests which detect lesions that after resection are all found to be benign. They excluded colonoscopies conducted for diagnostic indications or inflammatory bowel disease, as well as incomplete colonoscopies, and for those with inadequate bowel preparation.

Overall, they studied 441 non-AIAC colonoscopies (between November 2022 and April 2023) and 599 AIAC colonoscopies (between May 2023 and October 2023). The groups were balanced, and there were no significant differences in patient demographics, endoscopists, AI technology, procedure time, or average number of polyps detected.

In the non-AIAC cohort, 37 cases (8.4%) had polypectomies that revealed only benign lesions, as compared with 74 cases (12.4%) in the AIAC cohort. The most common resected lesions were benign colonic mucosa, lymphoid aggregates, and hyperplastic polyps.

Applied to the 15 million colonoscopies conducted in the United States per year, the findings indicate that full adoption of AIAC could result in about 600,000 more colonoscopies in which only benign, nonadenomatous lesions are removed, compared with traditional colonoscopy, Herman said.

More study of AIAC is needed, said Daniel Pambianco, MD, managing partner of GastroHealth-Charlottesville in Virginia and the 2023 ACG president. “This technology is in a fledging stage, and the more data we have, the more helpful it’ll be to know if we’re removing the right lesions at a better rate.”

“There’s a hope that assistance will improve detection, removal of polyps, and ultimately, colon cancer,” added Pambianco, who comoderated the session on colorectal cancer prevention.

Future longitudinal studies should monitor both ADR and benign lesion resection rates with AIAC, and modeling studies could determine the benefits and costs of the technology, Herman said. In addition, development of hybrid CADe and computer-aided diagnosis systems could mitigate concerns about excessive benign lesion resection with AI tools.

Valley Medical Group

Clinicians already are able to find colon mucosa that are polypoid or lymphoid aggregates during colonoscopy without AI assistance, said the session’s comoderator, Sita Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Ridgewood, New Jersey. 

“Instead, we need a tool that can help us to not remove these polyps that are not neoplastic,” she said. “With future developments, we may be able to take it to the next step where the algorithm tells us that it’s benign and not to touch it.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Herman, Pambianco, and Chokhavatia reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Artificial intelligence–assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) with computer-aided detection (CADe) technology may improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but it’s also associated with higher detection and removal of non-neoplastic lesions, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

In particular, AIAC led to a statistically and clinically significant increase in the proportion of exams that detected lesions that after resection were all found to be benign, compared with unassisted colonoscopy.

University of Minnesota

“The potential implications include increased procedural risks, as well as costs, such as pathology costs and other healthcare expenditures, without any additional colorectal cancer prevention benefit,” said lead author Tessa Herman, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

In a previous implementation trial at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Herman and colleagues compared ADR between a group of patients undergoing AIAC and a historical cohort of patients who had non–AI-assisted colonoscopy.

In this subsequent study, the research team conducted an ad hoc analysis of data from the previous trial to determine the proportion of colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, and positive fecal immunochemical tests which detect lesions that after resection are all found to be benign. They excluded colonoscopies conducted for diagnostic indications or inflammatory bowel disease, as well as incomplete colonoscopies, and for those with inadequate bowel preparation.

Overall, they studied 441 non-AIAC colonoscopies (between November 2022 and April 2023) and 599 AIAC colonoscopies (between May 2023 and October 2023). The groups were balanced, and there were no significant differences in patient demographics, endoscopists, AI technology, procedure time, or average number of polyps detected.

In the non-AIAC cohort, 37 cases (8.4%) had polypectomies that revealed only benign lesions, as compared with 74 cases (12.4%) in the AIAC cohort. The most common resected lesions were benign colonic mucosa, lymphoid aggregates, and hyperplastic polyps.

Applied to the 15 million colonoscopies conducted in the United States per year, the findings indicate that full adoption of AIAC could result in about 600,000 more colonoscopies in which only benign, nonadenomatous lesions are removed, compared with traditional colonoscopy, Herman said.

More study of AIAC is needed, said Daniel Pambianco, MD, managing partner of GastroHealth-Charlottesville in Virginia and the 2023 ACG president. “This technology is in a fledging stage, and the more data we have, the more helpful it’ll be to know if we’re removing the right lesions at a better rate.”

“There’s a hope that assistance will improve detection, removal of polyps, and ultimately, colon cancer,” added Pambianco, who comoderated the session on colorectal cancer prevention.

Future longitudinal studies should monitor both ADR and benign lesion resection rates with AIAC, and modeling studies could determine the benefits and costs of the technology, Herman said. In addition, development of hybrid CADe and computer-aided diagnosis systems could mitigate concerns about excessive benign lesion resection with AI tools.

Valley Medical Group

Clinicians already are able to find colon mucosa that are polypoid or lymphoid aggregates during colonoscopy without AI assistance, said the session’s comoderator, Sita Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Ridgewood, New Jersey. 

“Instead, we need a tool that can help us to not remove these polyps that are not neoplastic,” she said. “With future developments, we may be able to take it to the next step where the algorithm tells us that it’s benign and not to touch it.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Herman, Pambianco, and Chokhavatia reported no relevant disclosures.

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

How comfortable are you giving nutritional advice to your patients? When you offer it are you basing your advice on something you learned during medical school or your training? Was it included in a course devoted to nutrition? Did you learn it later as part of continuing medical education course (CME)? Or was it just something you just picked up from your experience seeing patients (osmosis)? It is very unlikely that a significant portion, or any part for that matter, of your medical training was devoted to nutrition. It certainly wasn’t during my training.

I recently read an interview with Emily M. Broad Leib, JD, faculty director of the Harvard School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who would like to correct that deficiency. She feels doctors need to know more about food and that acquiring that knowledge should be a significant component of their formal training.

In the interview, Leib said that “roughly 86% of physicians report they do not feel adequately trained to answer basic questions on diet or nutrition.” She also notes that while “72% of entering medical students report they believe food is important to health” less than 50% retained this belief after graduation.

Leib and associates feel they have recently reached a milestone in their efforts to include nutrition in the mainstream of medical education this fall by publishing a paper that demonstrates “consensus on doctor-approved nutritional standard for medical schools and residency programs.”
 

36 Recommended Competencies

Curious about what these nutrition experts chose to include in medical training, I decided to drill down into the list of 36 consensus-driven competencies they had agreed upon.

It was an interesting voyage into a forest of redundancies, many of which can be boiled down to having the student demonstrate that he/she understands that what we eat is important to our health and that there is a complex web of relationships connecting our society to the food consume.

Some of the recommended competencies I found make perfect sense. For example the student/trainee should be able to take a diet and food history and be able to interpret lab values and anthropometric measurements and be able to discuss the patient’s weight and diet with sensitivity while keeping in mind his/her own biases about food.

Some other recommendations are more problematic, for example, “performs a comprehensive nutrition-focused physical examination” or “demonstrates knowledge of how to create culinary nutrition SMART [Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound] goals for personal use and for patient care” or “provides brief counseling interventions to help patients decrease visceral adiposity or reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome.” Including competencies like these demonstrates a lack of understanding of the time restraints and realities of a primary care physician’s life and training.

Instead of simply reinforcing the prospective physician’s preexisting assumption that food and health are entwined and discussing when and how to consult a nutrition expert, these 36 competencies seem to be an attempt to create fast-tracked part-time dietitians and nutrition advocates out of medical students and trainees who already believe that nutrition is important for health but also have a very full plate of clinical responsibilities ahead of them.

The study that Leib quotes — that 72% of medical students believed food was important in health while after graduation only 50% of agreed — doesn’t necessarily mean that professors are preaching that food was unimportant. It is more likely by the end of medical school the students have seen that food must share the spotlight with numerous other factors that influence their patients’ health.
 

‘A More Appropriate Focus’

In my experience, diet and lifestyle counseling done well is extremely time consuming and best done by people for whom that is their specialty. A more appropriate focus for a list of nutritional competencies for physicians in training would be for the student to achieve an understanding of when and how to consult a dietitian and then how to support and evaluate the dietitian’s recommendations to the patient.

Finally, I don’t think we can ignore a serious public relations problem that hangs like a cloud over the nutrition advocacy community. It is the same one that casts a shadow on the medical community as well. It is a common perception among the lay public that nutritionists (and physicians) are always changing their recommendations when it comes to food. What is believable? Just think about eggs, red wine, or introducing peanuts to infants, to name just a few. And what about the food pyramids that seem to have been rebuilt every several years? The problem is compounded when some “credentialed” nutritionists and physicians continue to make dietary pronouncements with only a shred of evidence or poorly documented anecdotal observations.

The first of the 36 competencies I reviewed reads: “Provide evidence-based, culturally sensitive nutrition and food recommendations for the prevention and treatment of disease.” When it comes to nutrition the “evidence” can be tough to come by. The natural experiments in which individuals and populations had extremely limited access to a certain nutrients (eg, scurvy) don’t occur very often. Animal studies don’t always extrapolate to humans. And, observational studies concerning diet often have co-factors that are difficult to control and must run over time courses that can tax even the most patient researchers.

I certainly applaud Leib and associates for promoting their primary goal of including more about of the relationship between food and health in the medical school and trainee curriculum. But I must voice a caution to be careful to keep it truly evidence-based and in a format that acknowledges the realities of the life and education of a primary care provider.

The best nutritional advice I ever received in my training was from an older pediatric professor who suggested that a healthy diet consisted of everything in moderation.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

How comfortable are you giving nutritional advice to your patients? When you offer it are you basing your advice on something you learned during medical school or your training? Was it included in a course devoted to nutrition? Did you learn it later as part of continuing medical education course (CME)? Or was it just something you just picked up from your experience seeing patients (osmosis)? It is very unlikely that a significant portion, or any part for that matter, of your medical training was devoted to nutrition. It certainly wasn’t during my training.

I recently read an interview with Emily M. Broad Leib, JD, faculty director of the Harvard School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who would like to correct that deficiency. She feels doctors need to know more about food and that acquiring that knowledge should be a significant component of their formal training.

In the interview, Leib said that “roughly 86% of physicians report they do not feel adequately trained to answer basic questions on diet or nutrition.” She also notes that while “72% of entering medical students report they believe food is important to health” less than 50% retained this belief after graduation.

Leib and associates feel they have recently reached a milestone in their efforts to include nutrition in the mainstream of medical education this fall by publishing a paper that demonstrates “consensus on doctor-approved nutritional standard for medical schools and residency programs.”
 

36 Recommended Competencies

Curious about what these nutrition experts chose to include in medical training, I decided to drill down into the list of 36 consensus-driven competencies they had agreed upon.

It was an interesting voyage into a forest of redundancies, many of which can be boiled down to having the student demonstrate that he/she understands that what we eat is important to our health and that there is a complex web of relationships connecting our society to the food consume.

Some of the recommended competencies I found make perfect sense. For example the student/trainee should be able to take a diet and food history and be able to interpret lab values and anthropometric measurements and be able to discuss the patient’s weight and diet with sensitivity while keeping in mind his/her own biases about food.

Some other recommendations are more problematic, for example, “performs a comprehensive nutrition-focused physical examination” or “demonstrates knowledge of how to create culinary nutrition SMART [Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound] goals for personal use and for patient care” or “provides brief counseling interventions to help patients decrease visceral adiposity or reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome.” Including competencies like these demonstrates a lack of understanding of the time restraints and realities of a primary care physician’s life and training.

Instead of simply reinforcing the prospective physician’s preexisting assumption that food and health are entwined and discussing when and how to consult a nutrition expert, these 36 competencies seem to be an attempt to create fast-tracked part-time dietitians and nutrition advocates out of medical students and trainees who already believe that nutrition is important for health but also have a very full plate of clinical responsibilities ahead of them.

The study that Leib quotes — that 72% of medical students believed food was important in health while after graduation only 50% of agreed — doesn’t necessarily mean that professors are preaching that food was unimportant. It is more likely by the end of medical school the students have seen that food must share the spotlight with numerous other factors that influence their patients’ health.
 

‘A More Appropriate Focus’

In my experience, diet and lifestyle counseling done well is extremely time consuming and best done by people for whom that is their specialty. A more appropriate focus for a list of nutritional competencies for physicians in training would be for the student to achieve an understanding of when and how to consult a dietitian and then how to support and evaluate the dietitian’s recommendations to the patient.

Finally, I don’t think we can ignore a serious public relations problem that hangs like a cloud over the nutrition advocacy community. It is the same one that casts a shadow on the medical community as well. It is a common perception among the lay public that nutritionists (and physicians) are always changing their recommendations when it comes to food. What is believable? Just think about eggs, red wine, or introducing peanuts to infants, to name just a few. And what about the food pyramids that seem to have been rebuilt every several years? The problem is compounded when some “credentialed” nutritionists and physicians continue to make dietary pronouncements with only a shred of evidence or poorly documented anecdotal observations.

The first of the 36 competencies I reviewed reads: “Provide evidence-based, culturally sensitive nutrition and food recommendations for the prevention and treatment of disease.” When it comes to nutrition the “evidence” can be tough to come by. The natural experiments in which individuals and populations had extremely limited access to a certain nutrients (eg, scurvy) don’t occur very often. Animal studies don’t always extrapolate to humans. And, observational studies concerning diet often have co-factors that are difficult to control and must run over time courses that can tax even the most patient researchers.

I certainly applaud Leib and associates for promoting their primary goal of including more about of the relationship between food and health in the medical school and trainee curriculum. But I must voice a caution to be careful to keep it truly evidence-based and in a format that acknowledges the realities of the life and education of a primary care provider.

The best nutritional advice I ever received in my training was from an older pediatric professor who suggested that a healthy diet consisted of everything in moderation.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

How comfortable are you giving nutritional advice to your patients? When you offer it are you basing your advice on something you learned during medical school or your training? Was it included in a course devoted to nutrition? Did you learn it later as part of continuing medical education course (CME)? Or was it just something you just picked up from your experience seeing patients (osmosis)? It is very unlikely that a significant portion, or any part for that matter, of your medical training was devoted to nutrition. It certainly wasn’t during my training.

I recently read an interview with Emily M. Broad Leib, JD, faculty director of the Harvard School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who would like to correct that deficiency. She feels doctors need to know more about food and that acquiring that knowledge should be a significant component of their formal training.

In the interview, Leib said that “roughly 86% of physicians report they do not feel adequately trained to answer basic questions on diet or nutrition.” She also notes that while “72% of entering medical students report they believe food is important to health” less than 50% retained this belief after graduation.

Leib and associates feel they have recently reached a milestone in their efforts to include nutrition in the mainstream of medical education this fall by publishing a paper that demonstrates “consensus on doctor-approved nutritional standard for medical schools and residency programs.”
 

36 Recommended Competencies

Curious about what these nutrition experts chose to include in medical training, I decided to drill down into the list of 36 consensus-driven competencies they had agreed upon.

It was an interesting voyage into a forest of redundancies, many of which can be boiled down to having the student demonstrate that he/she understands that what we eat is important to our health and that there is a complex web of relationships connecting our society to the food consume.

Some of the recommended competencies I found make perfect sense. For example the student/trainee should be able to take a diet and food history and be able to interpret lab values and anthropometric measurements and be able to discuss the patient’s weight and diet with sensitivity while keeping in mind his/her own biases about food.

Some other recommendations are more problematic, for example, “performs a comprehensive nutrition-focused physical examination” or “demonstrates knowledge of how to create culinary nutrition SMART [Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound] goals for personal use and for patient care” or “provides brief counseling interventions to help patients decrease visceral adiposity or reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome.” Including competencies like these demonstrates a lack of understanding of the time restraints and realities of a primary care physician’s life and training.

Instead of simply reinforcing the prospective physician’s preexisting assumption that food and health are entwined and discussing when and how to consult a nutrition expert, these 36 competencies seem to be an attempt to create fast-tracked part-time dietitians and nutrition advocates out of medical students and trainees who already believe that nutrition is important for health but also have a very full plate of clinical responsibilities ahead of them.

The study that Leib quotes — that 72% of medical students believed food was important in health while after graduation only 50% of agreed — doesn’t necessarily mean that professors are preaching that food was unimportant. It is more likely by the end of medical school the students have seen that food must share the spotlight with numerous other factors that influence their patients’ health.
 

‘A More Appropriate Focus’

In my experience, diet and lifestyle counseling done well is extremely time consuming and best done by people for whom that is their specialty. A more appropriate focus for a list of nutritional competencies for physicians in training would be for the student to achieve an understanding of when and how to consult a dietitian and then how to support and evaluate the dietitian’s recommendations to the patient.

Finally, I don’t think we can ignore a serious public relations problem that hangs like a cloud over the nutrition advocacy community. It is the same one that casts a shadow on the medical community as well. It is a common perception among the lay public that nutritionists (and physicians) are always changing their recommendations when it comes to food. What is believable? Just think about eggs, red wine, or introducing peanuts to infants, to name just a few. And what about the food pyramids that seem to have been rebuilt every several years? The problem is compounded when some “credentialed” nutritionists and physicians continue to make dietary pronouncements with only a shred of evidence or poorly documented anecdotal observations.

The first of the 36 competencies I reviewed reads: “Provide evidence-based, culturally sensitive nutrition and food recommendations for the prevention and treatment of disease.” When it comes to nutrition the “evidence” can be tough to come by. The natural experiments in which individuals and populations had extremely limited access to a certain nutrients (eg, scurvy) don’t occur very often. Animal studies don’t always extrapolate to humans. And, observational studies concerning diet often have co-factors that are difficult to control and must run over time courses that can tax even the most patient researchers.

I certainly applaud Leib and associates for promoting their primary goal of including more about of the relationship between food and health in the medical school and trainee curriculum. But I must voice a caution to be careful to keep it truly evidence-based and in a format that acknowledges the realities of the life and education of a primary care provider.

The best nutritional advice I ever received in my training was from an older pediatric professor who suggested that a healthy diet consisted of everything in moderation.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A group of international experts is challenging revised diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease as laid out by the Alzheimer’s Association earlier in 2024.

In a paper published online in JAMA Neurology, the International Working Group (IWG), which includes 46 experts from 17 countries, is recommending that the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease be limited to individuals with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and not be applied to cognitively normal individuals with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers such as amyloid-beta 42/40 or p-tau.

Clinicians should be “very careful” about using the “A” word (Alzheimer’s) for cognitively unimpaired people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, said the paper’s first author Bruno Dubois, MD, professor of neurology, Sorbonne University and Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.

Providing an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis to those who have a high chance of never developing cognitive impairment can be psychologically harmful, said Dubois.

“It’s not something small like telling someone they have a fever. Just imagine you’re 65 years old and are amyloid positive, and you’re told you have Alzheimer’s disease. It affects the decisions you make for the rest of your life and changes your vision of your future, even though you may never develop the disease,” he added.
 

Divergent View

The IWG’s perspective on Alzheimer’s disease contrasts with a recent proposal from the Alzheimer’s Association. The Alzheimer’s Association criteria suggest that Alzheimer’s disease should be regarded solely as a biological entity, which could include cognitively normal individuals with one core Alzheimer’s disease biomarker.

The IWG noted that its concerns regarding the application of a purely biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice prompted the group to consider updating its guidelines, potentially offering “an alternative definitional view of Alzheimer’s disease as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use.”

The group conducted a PubMed search for relevant Alzheimer’s disease articles, and included references, published between July 2020 and March 2024. The research showed the majority of biomarker-positive, cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic during their lifetime.

The risk of a 55-year-old who is amyloid positive developing Alzheimer’s disease is not that much higher than that for an individual of a similar age who is amyloid negative, Dubois noted. “There’s an 83% chance that person will never develop Alzheimer’s disease.”

Disclosing a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease to cognitively normal people with only one core Alzheimer’s disease biomarker represents “the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease,” the authors noted.

“A biomarker is a marker of pathology, not a biomarker of disease,” said Dubois, adding that a person may have markers for several different brain diseases.

The IWG recommends the following nomenclature: At risk for Alzheimer’s disease for those with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers but low lifetime risk and presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease for those with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers with a very high lifetime risk for progression such as individuals with autosomal dominant genetic mutations and other distinct biomarker profiles that put them at extremely high lifetime risk of developing the disease.

Dubois emphasized the difference between those showing typical Alzheimer’s disease symptoms with positive biomarkers who should be considered to have the disease and those with positive biomarkers but no typical Alzheimer’s disease symptoms who should be considered at risk.

This is an important distinction as it affects research approaches and assessment of risks, he said.

For low-risk asymptomatic individuals, the IWG does not recommend routine diagnostic testing outside of the research setting. “There’s no reason to send a 65-year-old cognitively normal subject off to collect biomarker information,” said Dubois.

He reiterated the importance of clinicians using appropriate and sensitive language surrounding Alzheimer’s disease when face to face with patients. This issue “is not purely semantic; this is real life.”

For these patients in the clinical setting, “we have to be very careful about proposing treatments that may have side effects,” he said.

However, this does not mean asymptomatic at-risk people should not be studied to determine what pharmacological interventions might prevent or delay the onset of clinical disease, he noted.

Presymptomatic individuals who are at a high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease “should be the target for clinical trials in the future” to determine best ways to delay the conversion to Alzheimer’s disease, he said.

The main focus of such research should be to better understand the “biomarker pattern profile” that is associated with a high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, said Dubois.
 

Plea for Unity

In an accompanying editorial, Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, director, Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues outline the difference between the IWG and Alzheimer’s Association positions.

As the IWG uses Alzheimer’s disease to define those with cognitive impairment and the Alzheimer’s Association group uses Alzheimer’s disease to define those with the pathology of the disease, the field is now at a crossroads. “Do we name the disease before clinical symptoms?” they asked.

They note that Alzheimer’s Association criteria distinguish between a disease and an illness, whereas the IWG does not. “As such, although the primary disagreement between the groups is semantic, the ramifications of the labeling can be significant.”

It is “incumbent” that the field “come together” on an Alzheimer’s disease definition, the editorial concluded. “Neither the Alzheimer’s Association or IWG documents are appropriate to serve as a guide for how to apply biomarkers in a clinical setting. Appropriate-use criteria are needed to form a bridge between biological frameworks and real-world clinical practice so we can all maximally help all of our patients with this disorder.”

In a comment, Reisa Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, and director, Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, all in Boston, who is part of the Alzheimer’s Association work group that published the revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease, likened Alzheimer’s disease, which begins in the brain many years before dementia onset, to cardiovascular disease in that it involves multiple processes. She noted the World Health Organization classifies cardiovascular disease as a “disease” prior to clinical manifestations such as stroke and myocardial infarction.

“If someone has Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brain, they are at risk for dementia or clinical manifestations of the disease — just like vascular disease quantifies the risk of stroke or heart attack, not risk of developing ‘vascular disease’ if the underlying vascular disease is already present,” said Sperling.

A large part of the controversy is related to terminology and the “stigma” of the “A” word in the same way there used to be fear around using the “C” word — cancer, said Sperling.

“Once people began talking about cancer publicly as a potentially treatable disease and began getting screened and diagnosed before symptoms of cancer were manifest, this has had a tremendous impact on public health.”

She clarified that her work group does not recommend screening asymptomatic people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers. “We actually need to prove that treating at the preclinical stage of the disease is able to prevent clinical impairment and dementia,” she said, adding “hopefully, we are getting closer to this.”

Dubois reported no relevant disclosures. Petersen reported receiving personal fees from Roche, Genentech, Eli Lilly and Company, Eisai, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work and royalties from Oxford University Press, UpToDate, and Medscape educational activities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of international experts is challenging revised diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease as laid out by the Alzheimer’s Association earlier in 2024.

In a paper published online in JAMA Neurology, the International Working Group (IWG), which includes 46 experts from 17 countries, is recommending that the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease be limited to individuals with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and not be applied to cognitively normal individuals with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers such as amyloid-beta 42/40 or p-tau.

Clinicians should be “very careful” about using the “A” word (Alzheimer’s) for cognitively unimpaired people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, said the paper’s first author Bruno Dubois, MD, professor of neurology, Sorbonne University and Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.

Providing an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis to those who have a high chance of never developing cognitive impairment can be psychologically harmful, said Dubois.

“It’s not something small like telling someone they have a fever. Just imagine you’re 65 years old and are amyloid positive, and you’re told you have Alzheimer’s disease. It affects the decisions you make for the rest of your life and changes your vision of your future, even though you may never develop the disease,” he added.
 

Divergent View

The IWG’s perspective on Alzheimer’s disease contrasts with a recent proposal from the Alzheimer’s Association. The Alzheimer’s Association criteria suggest that Alzheimer’s disease should be regarded solely as a biological entity, which could include cognitively normal individuals with one core Alzheimer’s disease biomarker.

The IWG noted that its concerns regarding the application of a purely biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice prompted the group to consider updating its guidelines, potentially offering “an alternative definitional view of Alzheimer’s disease as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use.”

The group conducted a PubMed search for relevant Alzheimer’s disease articles, and included references, published between July 2020 and March 2024. The research showed the majority of biomarker-positive, cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic during their lifetime.

The risk of a 55-year-old who is amyloid positive developing Alzheimer’s disease is not that much higher than that for an individual of a similar age who is amyloid negative, Dubois noted. “There’s an 83% chance that person will never develop Alzheimer’s disease.”

Disclosing a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease to cognitively normal people with only one core Alzheimer’s disease biomarker represents “the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease,” the authors noted.

“A biomarker is a marker of pathology, not a biomarker of disease,” said Dubois, adding that a person may have markers for several different brain diseases.

The IWG recommends the following nomenclature: At risk for Alzheimer’s disease for those with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers but low lifetime risk and presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease for those with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers with a very high lifetime risk for progression such as individuals with autosomal dominant genetic mutations and other distinct biomarker profiles that put them at extremely high lifetime risk of developing the disease.

Dubois emphasized the difference between those showing typical Alzheimer’s disease symptoms with positive biomarkers who should be considered to have the disease and those with positive biomarkers but no typical Alzheimer’s disease symptoms who should be considered at risk.

This is an important distinction as it affects research approaches and assessment of risks, he said.

For low-risk asymptomatic individuals, the IWG does not recommend routine diagnostic testing outside of the research setting. “There’s no reason to send a 65-year-old cognitively normal subject off to collect biomarker information,” said Dubois.

He reiterated the importance of clinicians using appropriate and sensitive language surrounding Alzheimer’s disease when face to face with patients. This issue “is not purely semantic; this is real life.”

For these patients in the clinical setting, “we have to be very careful about proposing treatments that may have side effects,” he said.

However, this does not mean asymptomatic at-risk people should not be studied to determine what pharmacological interventions might prevent or delay the onset of clinical disease, he noted.

Presymptomatic individuals who are at a high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease “should be the target for clinical trials in the future” to determine best ways to delay the conversion to Alzheimer’s disease, he said.

The main focus of such research should be to better understand the “biomarker pattern profile” that is associated with a high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, said Dubois.
 

Plea for Unity

In an accompanying editorial, Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, director, Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues outline the difference between the IWG and Alzheimer’s Association positions.

As the IWG uses Alzheimer’s disease to define those with cognitive impairment and the Alzheimer’s Association group uses Alzheimer’s disease to define those with the pathology of the disease, the field is now at a crossroads. “Do we name the disease before clinical symptoms?” they asked.

They note that Alzheimer’s Association criteria distinguish between a disease and an illness, whereas the IWG does not. “As such, although the primary disagreement between the groups is semantic, the ramifications of the labeling can be significant.”

It is “incumbent” that the field “come together” on an Alzheimer’s disease definition, the editorial concluded. “Neither the Alzheimer’s Association or IWG documents are appropriate to serve as a guide for how to apply biomarkers in a clinical setting. Appropriate-use criteria are needed to form a bridge between biological frameworks and real-world clinical practice so we can all maximally help all of our patients with this disorder.”

In a comment, Reisa Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, and director, Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, all in Boston, who is part of the Alzheimer’s Association work group that published the revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease, likened Alzheimer’s disease, which begins in the brain many years before dementia onset, to cardiovascular disease in that it involves multiple processes. She noted the World Health Organization classifies cardiovascular disease as a “disease” prior to clinical manifestations such as stroke and myocardial infarction.

“If someone has Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brain, they are at risk for dementia or clinical manifestations of the disease — just like vascular disease quantifies the risk of stroke or heart attack, not risk of developing ‘vascular disease’ if the underlying vascular disease is already present,” said Sperling.

A large part of the controversy is related to terminology and the “stigma” of the “A” word in the same way there used to be fear around using the “C” word — cancer, said Sperling.

“Once people began talking about cancer publicly as a potentially treatable disease and began getting screened and diagnosed before symptoms of cancer were manifest, this has had a tremendous impact on public health.”

She clarified that her work group does not recommend screening asymptomatic people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers. “We actually need to prove that treating at the preclinical stage of the disease is able to prevent clinical impairment and dementia,” she said, adding “hopefully, we are getting closer to this.”

Dubois reported no relevant disclosures. Petersen reported receiving personal fees from Roche, Genentech, Eli Lilly and Company, Eisai, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work and royalties from Oxford University Press, UpToDate, and Medscape educational activities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of international experts is challenging revised diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease as laid out by the Alzheimer’s Association earlier in 2024.

In a paper published online in JAMA Neurology, the International Working Group (IWG), which includes 46 experts from 17 countries, is recommending that the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease be limited to individuals with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and not be applied to cognitively normal individuals with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers such as amyloid-beta 42/40 or p-tau.

Clinicians should be “very careful” about using the “A” word (Alzheimer’s) for cognitively unimpaired people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, said the paper’s first author Bruno Dubois, MD, professor of neurology, Sorbonne University and Department of Neurology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.

Providing an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis to those who have a high chance of never developing cognitive impairment can be psychologically harmful, said Dubois.

“It’s not something small like telling someone they have a fever. Just imagine you’re 65 years old and are amyloid positive, and you’re told you have Alzheimer’s disease. It affects the decisions you make for the rest of your life and changes your vision of your future, even though you may never develop the disease,” he added.
 

Divergent View

The IWG’s perspective on Alzheimer’s disease contrasts with a recent proposal from the Alzheimer’s Association. The Alzheimer’s Association criteria suggest that Alzheimer’s disease should be regarded solely as a biological entity, which could include cognitively normal individuals with one core Alzheimer’s disease biomarker.

The IWG noted that its concerns regarding the application of a purely biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice prompted the group to consider updating its guidelines, potentially offering “an alternative definitional view of Alzheimer’s disease as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use.”

The group conducted a PubMed search for relevant Alzheimer’s disease articles, and included references, published between July 2020 and March 2024. The research showed the majority of biomarker-positive, cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic during their lifetime.

The risk of a 55-year-old who is amyloid positive developing Alzheimer’s disease is not that much higher than that for an individual of a similar age who is amyloid negative, Dubois noted. “There’s an 83% chance that person will never develop Alzheimer’s disease.”

Disclosing a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease to cognitively normal people with only one core Alzheimer’s disease biomarker represents “the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease,” the authors noted.

“A biomarker is a marker of pathology, not a biomarker of disease,” said Dubois, adding that a person may have markers for several different brain diseases.

The IWG recommends the following nomenclature: At risk for Alzheimer’s disease for those with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers but low lifetime risk and presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease for those with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers with a very high lifetime risk for progression such as individuals with autosomal dominant genetic mutations and other distinct biomarker profiles that put them at extremely high lifetime risk of developing the disease.

Dubois emphasized the difference between those showing typical Alzheimer’s disease symptoms with positive biomarkers who should be considered to have the disease and those with positive biomarkers but no typical Alzheimer’s disease symptoms who should be considered at risk.

This is an important distinction as it affects research approaches and assessment of risks, he said.

For low-risk asymptomatic individuals, the IWG does not recommend routine diagnostic testing outside of the research setting. “There’s no reason to send a 65-year-old cognitively normal subject off to collect biomarker information,” said Dubois.

He reiterated the importance of clinicians using appropriate and sensitive language surrounding Alzheimer’s disease when face to face with patients. This issue “is not purely semantic; this is real life.”

For these patients in the clinical setting, “we have to be very careful about proposing treatments that may have side effects,” he said.

However, this does not mean asymptomatic at-risk people should not be studied to determine what pharmacological interventions might prevent or delay the onset of clinical disease, he noted.

Presymptomatic individuals who are at a high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease “should be the target for clinical trials in the future” to determine best ways to delay the conversion to Alzheimer’s disease, he said.

The main focus of such research should be to better understand the “biomarker pattern profile” that is associated with a high risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, said Dubois.
 

Plea for Unity

In an accompanying editorial, Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, director, Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues outline the difference between the IWG and Alzheimer’s Association positions.

As the IWG uses Alzheimer’s disease to define those with cognitive impairment and the Alzheimer’s Association group uses Alzheimer’s disease to define those with the pathology of the disease, the field is now at a crossroads. “Do we name the disease before clinical symptoms?” they asked.

They note that Alzheimer’s Association criteria distinguish between a disease and an illness, whereas the IWG does not. “As such, although the primary disagreement between the groups is semantic, the ramifications of the labeling can be significant.”

It is “incumbent” that the field “come together” on an Alzheimer’s disease definition, the editorial concluded. “Neither the Alzheimer’s Association or IWG documents are appropriate to serve as a guide for how to apply biomarkers in a clinical setting. Appropriate-use criteria are needed to form a bridge between biological frameworks and real-world clinical practice so we can all maximally help all of our patients with this disorder.”

In a comment, Reisa Sperling, MD, professor of neurology, Harvard Medical School, and director, Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, all in Boston, who is part of the Alzheimer’s Association work group that published the revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease, likened Alzheimer’s disease, which begins in the brain many years before dementia onset, to cardiovascular disease in that it involves multiple processes. She noted the World Health Organization classifies cardiovascular disease as a “disease” prior to clinical manifestations such as stroke and myocardial infarction.

“If someone has Alzheimer’s disease pathology in their brain, they are at risk for dementia or clinical manifestations of the disease — just like vascular disease quantifies the risk of stroke or heart attack, not risk of developing ‘vascular disease’ if the underlying vascular disease is already present,” said Sperling.

A large part of the controversy is related to terminology and the “stigma” of the “A” word in the same way there used to be fear around using the “C” word — cancer, said Sperling.

“Once people began talking about cancer publicly as a potentially treatable disease and began getting screened and diagnosed before symptoms of cancer were manifest, this has had a tremendous impact on public health.”

She clarified that her work group does not recommend screening asymptomatic people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers. “We actually need to prove that treating at the preclinical stage of the disease is able to prevent clinical impairment and dementia,” she said, adding “hopefully, we are getting closer to this.”

Dubois reported no relevant disclosures. Petersen reported receiving personal fees from Roche, Genentech, Eli Lilly and Company, Eisai, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work and royalties from Oxford University Press, UpToDate, and Medscape educational activities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. The connections between health and climate have been recognized by physicians and patients even when climatology did not have the status of an exact science. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.

Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
 

Extreme Rainfall and Health

The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.

The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
 

Rain and Mortality

Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.

The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.

The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
 

Points of Concern

According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:

• Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
• Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
• Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.

The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.

The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy 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.

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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