Marcus A. Banks

Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children. 

Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics. 

The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.

“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.

An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant. 

Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others. 

“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.

“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
 

Never Too Late to Vaxx

Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.

Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.

This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.

“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.” 

“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.

In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”

During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.

“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.

If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.

“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen. 

Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.

“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.

“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.” 

Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children. 

Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics. 

The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.

“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.

An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant. 

Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others. 

“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.

“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
 

Never Too Late to Vaxx

Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.

Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.

This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.

“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.” 

“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.

In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”

During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.

“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.

If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.

“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen. 

Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.

“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.

“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.” 

Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Florida possibly sparked by vaccine hesitancy, the state’s surgeon general Joseph Ladapo, MD, is contradicting public health guidance of encouraging quarantine of unvaccinated children. 

Rather than requesting that parents keep children unvaccinated against measles home from school or to get their children vaccinated, both critical tools in containing an outbreak, Dr. Ladapo has advised parents to do whatever they think is best. Pediatricians and infectious disease specialists fear a free-for-all will fuel the spread of the highly infectious virus, including in their own clinics. 

The outbreak has been traced to an elementary school in Weston and has so far sickened at least eight children, one of whom is younger than 5 years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, roughly 91% of the 230,000-odd kindergarteners in Florida had received the requisite doses of the MMR vaccine, which also protects against mumps and rubella, for the 2022-2023 school year, below the 95% vaccination level which public health authorities believes confers herd immunity against measles. An estimated 4.5% of kindergarteners in the state have received an exemption for the vaccine, which prevents measles in 97% of the people who get the shots, for a lifetime. The first dose is given around age 13 months and the second when people are age 4 or 5 years and soon to enter school.

“If you’re vaccinated you have a very slim chance of getting the virus,” said Rana Alissa, MD, a pediatrician at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville.

An unvaccinated child has no protection against measles, and could spread it to others merely by sneezing or touching a surface. In a school setting, infection could spread to a teacher who cannot receive the measles vaccine due to a weakened immune system, or the unvaccinated child could spread the virus at a pediatric clinic or hospital when seeking care for measles unless the clinic staff takes rigorous steps to separate the child from other children. Some children at the clinic won’t be able to get the measles vaccine either because of immunodeficiency or perhaps having had a bone marrow transplant. 

Assuming the unvaccinated child is healthy, the measles infection will run its course, and the child will then be immune to the disease, Dr. Alissa said. But meanwhile, the child could pose a significant risk to others. 

“We’re not worried about the unvaccinated kids who are very healthy. We’re worried about the adults who did not get vaccinated and who are very sick,” said Dr. Alissa, vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). “We’re worried about the little kids who are less than 13 months old. We’re worried about the kids with immunodeficiency disorders.” The Florida chapter of the AAP encourages parents to get their children vaccinated against measles amid the ongoing outbreak.

“I wish our surgeon general was on the same page as us,” Dr. Alissa added, noting that she thinks misplaced vaccine hesitancy has caused some parents to forego a safe and effective vaccine for their children.
 

Never Too Late to Vaxx

Measles symptoms appear 10-14 days after exposure and can include sore throat, cough, runny nose, inflamed eyes, fever, and blotchy skin rashes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20% of people who are unvaccinated against measles will be hospitalized for the virus if they contract it.

Given the incubation period for the virus, clinicians and public health officials recommend unvaccinated children isolate for 21 days after being exposed to measles at school. The advice applies to any unvaccinated child, whether because their parent opted against the vaccine or because they cannot safely receive the immunization.

This is the guidance that Surgeon General Ladapo is flouting.

“We have a public health system. They’re awesome. They’re the experts. Let’s use them,” Dr. Alissa noted. “Their recommendation is to keep the unvaccinated kids at home for 21 days when you have an outbreak.” 

“We’re not calling him doctor anymore,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. 

“Getting your kids immunized before they enter school is so critical,” added Dr. Pavia, because the 21-day quarantine period is onerous for children and parents alike.

In a February 26 statement, Marcus Plescia, MD, MPH, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said “well-established public health practice recommends that unvaccinated persons exposed to measles stay home for at least 21 days to prevent further growth of the outbreak. While this is undoubtedly disruptive to the persons impacted, imagine how much more disruptive it would be if measles takes hold again in the United States, spreading widely, and impacting children and communities across the entire nation.”

During an outbreak, it’s still possible to give a measles vaccine to a child who has not yet received the shots, Dr. Pavia stressed. But time is of the essence: Vaccination should occur within 72 hours of the first known measles case in a school.

“It’s not perfect, they may still get measles, but it will greatly decrease the severity,” Dr. Pavia said.

If some children won’t get vaccinated during an outbreak, their parents may call a pediatrician or hospital staff for help as measles symptoms take hold. Clinicians should advise everyone in the home who is older than 2 years to begin wearing N95 masks and gloves, Dr. Alissa said. And when the child comes into the clinic he or she should be examined in a separate room, ideally one with negative air pressure and frequent filtration, Dr. Alissa added. If not, any private room will do if nobody else uses the room for at least 2 hours afterward.

“Measles is phenomenally transmissible,” Dr. Pavia said. A person with the virus can infect 12 to 18 others who are not protected against the pathogen. 

Someone with a severe reaction to measles could get an injection of intramuscular immunoglobulin, Dr. Pavia said, although this tends to be uncomfortable and expensive.

“The vaccine works. We almost got rid of measles,” Dr. Alissa said, although parents who choose to send their unvaccinated children to school can do so if they choose to.

“The fear of every pediatrician is to have a child die from this,” she said. “People who are sick, please stay at home.” 

Dr. Pavia reported an advisory relationship with Sanofi Pasteur regarding an RSV vaccine. Dr. Alissa reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Unnecessary or incorrect use of topical antifungal medications is driving the spread of fungal infections like ringworm, which are becoming more difficult to treat, according to a January 11 study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

If a patient’s condition is not caused by a fungus but is treated as such, treatment will be ineffective.

The authors strongly advise primary care clinicians to confirm ringworm diagnoses through lab testing before prescribing treatments such as clotrimazole or combinations of antifungals and corticosteroids. And because many topical treatments are also available over-the-counter, doctors should advise patients about how to use them correctly.

“In the last few years, there have been many antifungal resistant cases of tinea corporisand onychomycosisreported,” or ringworm and finger or toenail infections, respectively, said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and an author of the study.

Many of these cases originated in South Asia and have also been reported in Europe and Canada. In 2023, the first cases of a new strain of antifungal-resistant ringworm were reported in the United States. This species, Trichophyton indotineae, does not respond to topical medications, requiring oral treatment instead.

“It’s really a serious problem and a huge public health concern,” Dr. Lipner said. 

For the new study, Dr. Lipner and colleagues examined prescription patterns from 2021 Medicare Part D claims of topical antifungals. They report that 6.5 million topical antifungal prescriptions were filled that year, some of which included steroids in the formulation. Primary care clinicians wrote 40% of these prescriptions, the most for any clinician group. The estimate is almost certainly an undercount of topical antifungal use because the database did not include over-the-counter purchases or data from other insurance payers.

The number of prescriptions equate to 1 in every 8 Medicare Part D beneficiary receiving an antifungal, the researchers reported. 

“If I think about the patients that come into my office, I’m certainly not giving an antifungal to 1 in 8 of them, and I see a lot of fungal infections,” Dr. Lipner said. The findings suggest to Dr. Lipner that some clinicians are diagnosing ringworm by eyesight alone rather than confirming the diagnosis with techniques such as microscopy, fungal culture testing, or polymerase chain reaction testing. 

Sometimes what looks like ringworm may actually be eczema, in which case, the topical antifungal would not be appropriate, according to Avrom Caplan, MD, a dermatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“If you’re prescribing something to somebody that they don’t need, you’re basically exposing them to the side effects without the benefit,” Dr. Caplan, who was not part of the study, said. 

Dr. Caplan, who reported the first cases of ringworm that only responded to oral medications in the United States, stressed that topical treatments work fine for many ringworm cases today. But if indiscriminate prescribing spurs the development of more resilient fungi, more situations may arise in which only oral medications work in the future, Dr. Caplan said. In addition, oral medications are inherently more demanding on a patient than something they can rub on their skin, Dr. Caplan added.

“We hope that physicians will really think hard about this study and change their practices if they’re not confirming the diagnosis,” Dr. Lipner said.

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Caplan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Unnecessary or incorrect use of topical antifungal medications is driving the spread of fungal infections like ringworm, which are becoming more difficult to treat, according to a January 11 study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

If a patient’s condition is not caused by a fungus but is treated as such, treatment will be ineffective.

The authors strongly advise primary care clinicians to confirm ringworm diagnoses through lab testing before prescribing treatments such as clotrimazole or combinations of antifungals and corticosteroids. And because many topical treatments are also available over-the-counter, doctors should advise patients about how to use them correctly.

“In the last few years, there have been many antifungal resistant cases of tinea corporisand onychomycosisreported,” or ringworm and finger or toenail infections, respectively, said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and an author of the study.

Many of these cases originated in South Asia and have also been reported in Europe and Canada. In 2023, the first cases of a new strain of antifungal-resistant ringworm were reported in the United States. This species, Trichophyton indotineae, does not respond to topical medications, requiring oral treatment instead.

“It’s really a serious problem and a huge public health concern,” Dr. Lipner said. 

For the new study, Dr. Lipner and colleagues examined prescription patterns from 2021 Medicare Part D claims of topical antifungals. They report that 6.5 million topical antifungal prescriptions were filled that year, some of which included steroids in the formulation. Primary care clinicians wrote 40% of these prescriptions, the most for any clinician group. The estimate is almost certainly an undercount of topical antifungal use because the database did not include over-the-counter purchases or data from other insurance payers.

The number of prescriptions equate to 1 in every 8 Medicare Part D beneficiary receiving an antifungal, the researchers reported. 

“If I think about the patients that come into my office, I’m certainly not giving an antifungal to 1 in 8 of them, and I see a lot of fungal infections,” Dr. Lipner said. The findings suggest to Dr. Lipner that some clinicians are diagnosing ringworm by eyesight alone rather than confirming the diagnosis with techniques such as microscopy, fungal culture testing, or polymerase chain reaction testing. 

Sometimes what looks like ringworm may actually be eczema, in which case, the topical antifungal would not be appropriate, according to Avrom Caplan, MD, a dermatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“If you’re prescribing something to somebody that they don’t need, you’re basically exposing them to the side effects without the benefit,” Dr. Caplan, who was not part of the study, said. 

Dr. Caplan, who reported the first cases of ringworm that only responded to oral medications in the United States, stressed that topical treatments work fine for many ringworm cases today. But if indiscriminate prescribing spurs the development of more resilient fungi, more situations may arise in which only oral medications work in the future, Dr. Caplan said. In addition, oral medications are inherently more demanding on a patient than something they can rub on their skin, Dr. Caplan added.

“We hope that physicians will really think hard about this study and change their practices if they’re not confirming the diagnosis,” Dr. Lipner said.

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Caplan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Unnecessary or incorrect use of topical antifungal medications is driving the spread of fungal infections like ringworm, which are becoming more difficult to treat, according to a January 11 study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

If a patient’s condition is not caused by a fungus but is treated as such, treatment will be ineffective.

The authors strongly advise primary care clinicians to confirm ringworm diagnoses through lab testing before prescribing treatments such as clotrimazole or combinations of antifungals and corticosteroids. And because many topical treatments are also available over-the-counter, doctors should advise patients about how to use them correctly.

“In the last few years, there have been many antifungal resistant cases of tinea corporisand onychomycosisreported,” or ringworm and finger or toenail infections, respectively, said Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and an author of the study.

Many of these cases originated in South Asia and have also been reported in Europe and Canada. In 2023, the first cases of a new strain of antifungal-resistant ringworm were reported in the United States. This species, Trichophyton indotineae, does not respond to topical medications, requiring oral treatment instead.

“It’s really a serious problem and a huge public health concern,” Dr. Lipner said. 

For the new study, Dr. Lipner and colleagues examined prescription patterns from 2021 Medicare Part D claims of topical antifungals. They report that 6.5 million topical antifungal prescriptions were filled that year, some of which included steroids in the formulation. Primary care clinicians wrote 40% of these prescriptions, the most for any clinician group. The estimate is almost certainly an undercount of topical antifungal use because the database did not include over-the-counter purchases or data from other insurance payers.

The number of prescriptions equate to 1 in every 8 Medicare Part D beneficiary receiving an antifungal, the researchers reported. 

“If I think about the patients that come into my office, I’m certainly not giving an antifungal to 1 in 8 of them, and I see a lot of fungal infections,” Dr. Lipner said. The findings suggest to Dr. Lipner that some clinicians are diagnosing ringworm by eyesight alone rather than confirming the diagnosis with techniques such as microscopy, fungal culture testing, or polymerase chain reaction testing. 

Sometimes what looks like ringworm may actually be eczema, in which case, the topical antifungal would not be appropriate, according to Avrom Caplan, MD, a dermatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“If you’re prescribing something to somebody that they don’t need, you’re basically exposing them to the side effects without the benefit,” Dr. Caplan, who was not part of the study, said. 

Dr. Caplan, who reported the first cases of ringworm that only responded to oral medications in the United States, stressed that topical treatments work fine for many ringworm cases today. But if indiscriminate prescribing spurs the development of more resilient fungi, more situations may arise in which only oral medications work in the future, Dr. Caplan said. In addition, oral medications are inherently more demanding on a patient than something they can rub on their skin, Dr. Caplan added.

“We hope that physicians will really think hard about this study and change their practices if they’re not confirming the diagnosis,” Dr. Lipner said.

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Caplan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11. 

The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and may contribute to 45,000 maternal deaths globally every year. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.

Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines. 

The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States. 

This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.

The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said. 

The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills. 

Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth. 

Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early. 

“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said. 
 

Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?

But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia. 

Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure. 

Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.

“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.

Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11. 

The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and may contribute to 45,000 maternal deaths globally every year. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.

Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines. 

The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States. 

This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.

The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said. 

The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills. 

Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth. 

Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early. 

“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said. 
 

Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?

But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia. 

Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure. 

Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.

“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.

Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11. 

The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and may contribute to 45,000 maternal deaths globally every year. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.

Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines. 

The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States. 

This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.

The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said. 

The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills. 

Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth. 

Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early. 

“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said. 
 

Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?

But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia. 

Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure. 

Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.

“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.

Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication people with type 2 diabetes use to manage their blood sugar also appears to protect their hearts and kidneys, according to a study in JAMA Network Open. 

These pills, known as sodium-glucose cotransport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, reduce the amount of blood sugar in a kidney by causing more glucose to be excreted in urine.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) cannot be cured and often leads to renal failure. SGLT2 inhibitor drugs can help stave off this possibility. Acute kidney disease (AKD), on the other hand, is potentially reversible. It typically occurs after an acute kidney injury, lasts for up to 90 days, and can progress to CKD if left unchecked. 

“There has been a notable absence of targeted pharmacotherapy to offer protection to these patients,” said Vin-Cent Wu, MD, PhD, a nephrologist at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei, and an author of the study. 

For the retrospective analysis, Dr. Wu and his colleagues looked at data from more than 230,000 adults with type 2 diabetes whose health records were gathered into a research tool called the TriNetX, a global research database. Patients had been treated for AKD between 2002 and 2022. Major adverse kidney events were noted for 5 years after discharge, which were defined as events which required regular dialysis, major adverse cardiovascular events such as a heart attack or stroke, or death. 

To determine the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Wu and colleagues compared outcomes among 5317 patients with AKD who received the drugs with 5317 similar patients who did not. Members of both groups had lived for at least 90 days after being discharged from the hospital and did not require dialysis during that period. 

After a median follow-up of 2.3 years, more patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor had died (994 compared with 481) or had endured major stress to their kidneys (1119 compared with 504) or heart (612 compared with 295). The relative reduction in mortality risk for people in the SGLT2-inhibitor arm was 31% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77).

Only 2.3% of patients with AKD in the study were prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

In the United States, approximately 20% of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD receive a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to 2023 research.

“Our study reveals that the prescription rate of SGLT2 inhibitors remains relatively low in clinical practice among patients with type 2 diabetes and AKD,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “This underscores the need for increased awareness and greater consideration of this critical issue in clinical decision-making.” 

Dr. Wu said that AKD management tends to be conservative and relies on symptom monitoring. He acknowledged that confounders may have influenced the results, and that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors might only be correlated with better results instead of producing a causation effect.

This point was raised by Ayodele Odutayo, MD, DPhil, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study. But despite that caution, Dr. Odutayo said that he found the study to be encouraging overall and broadly in line with known benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD. 

“The findings are reassuring that the medications work even in people who’ve already had some kidney injury beforehand,” but who are not yet diagnosed with CKD, Dr. Odutayo said. 

“There is vast underuse of these medications in people for whom they are indicated,” perhaps due to clinician concern that the drugs will cause side effects such as low blood pressure or loss of salt and fluid, Dr. Odutayo said. Though those concerns are valid, the benefits of these drugs exceed the risks for most patients with CKD. 

Dr. Wu and Dr. Odutayo report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication people with type 2 diabetes use to manage their blood sugar also appears to protect their hearts and kidneys, according to a study in JAMA Network Open. 

These pills, known as sodium-glucose cotransport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, reduce the amount of blood sugar in a kidney by causing more glucose to be excreted in urine.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) cannot be cured and often leads to renal failure. SGLT2 inhibitor drugs can help stave off this possibility. Acute kidney disease (AKD), on the other hand, is potentially reversible. It typically occurs after an acute kidney injury, lasts for up to 90 days, and can progress to CKD if left unchecked. 

“There has been a notable absence of targeted pharmacotherapy to offer protection to these patients,” said Vin-Cent Wu, MD, PhD, a nephrologist at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei, and an author of the study. 

For the retrospective analysis, Dr. Wu and his colleagues looked at data from more than 230,000 adults with type 2 diabetes whose health records were gathered into a research tool called the TriNetX, a global research database. Patients had been treated for AKD between 2002 and 2022. Major adverse kidney events were noted for 5 years after discharge, which were defined as events which required regular dialysis, major adverse cardiovascular events such as a heart attack or stroke, or death. 

To determine the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Wu and colleagues compared outcomes among 5317 patients with AKD who received the drugs with 5317 similar patients who did not. Members of both groups had lived for at least 90 days after being discharged from the hospital and did not require dialysis during that period. 

After a median follow-up of 2.3 years, more patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor had died (994 compared with 481) or had endured major stress to their kidneys (1119 compared with 504) or heart (612 compared with 295). The relative reduction in mortality risk for people in the SGLT2-inhibitor arm was 31% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77).

Only 2.3% of patients with AKD in the study were prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

In the United States, approximately 20% of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD receive a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to 2023 research.

“Our study reveals that the prescription rate of SGLT2 inhibitors remains relatively low in clinical practice among patients with type 2 diabetes and AKD,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “This underscores the need for increased awareness and greater consideration of this critical issue in clinical decision-making.” 

Dr. Wu said that AKD management tends to be conservative and relies on symptom monitoring. He acknowledged that confounders may have influenced the results, and that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors might only be correlated with better results instead of producing a causation effect.

This point was raised by Ayodele Odutayo, MD, DPhil, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study. But despite that caution, Dr. Odutayo said that he found the study to be encouraging overall and broadly in line with known benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD. 

“The findings are reassuring that the medications work even in people who’ve already had some kidney injury beforehand,” but who are not yet diagnosed with CKD, Dr. Odutayo said. 

“There is vast underuse of these medications in people for whom they are indicated,” perhaps due to clinician concern that the drugs will cause side effects such as low blood pressure or loss of salt and fluid, Dr. Odutayo said. Though those concerns are valid, the benefits of these drugs exceed the risks for most patients with CKD. 

Dr. Wu and Dr. Odutayo report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medication people with type 2 diabetes use to manage their blood sugar also appears to protect their hearts and kidneys, according to a study in JAMA Network Open. 

These pills, known as sodium-glucose cotransport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, reduce the amount of blood sugar in a kidney by causing more glucose to be excreted in urine.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) cannot be cured and often leads to renal failure. SGLT2 inhibitor drugs can help stave off this possibility. Acute kidney disease (AKD), on the other hand, is potentially reversible. It typically occurs after an acute kidney injury, lasts for up to 90 days, and can progress to CKD if left unchecked. 

“There has been a notable absence of targeted pharmacotherapy to offer protection to these patients,” said Vin-Cent Wu, MD, PhD, a nephrologist at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei, and an author of the study. 

For the retrospective analysis, Dr. Wu and his colleagues looked at data from more than 230,000 adults with type 2 diabetes whose health records were gathered into a research tool called the TriNetX, a global research database. Patients had been treated for AKD between 2002 and 2022. Major adverse kidney events were noted for 5 years after discharge, which were defined as events which required regular dialysis, major adverse cardiovascular events such as a heart attack or stroke, or death. 

To determine the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Wu and colleagues compared outcomes among 5317 patients with AKD who received the drugs with 5317 similar patients who did not. Members of both groups had lived for at least 90 days after being discharged from the hospital and did not require dialysis during that period. 

After a median follow-up of 2.3 years, more patients who did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor had died (994 compared with 481) or had endured major stress to their kidneys (1119 compared with 504) or heart (612 compared with 295). The relative reduction in mortality risk for people in the SGLT2-inhibitor arm was 31% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77).

Only 2.3% of patients with AKD in the study were prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

In the United States, approximately 20% of people with type 2 diabetes and CKD receive a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to 2023 research.

“Our study reveals that the prescription rate of SGLT2 inhibitors remains relatively low in clinical practice among patients with type 2 diabetes and AKD,” Dr. Wu told this news organization. “This underscores the need for increased awareness and greater consideration of this critical issue in clinical decision-making.” 

Dr. Wu said that AKD management tends to be conservative and relies on symptom monitoring. He acknowledged that confounders may have influenced the results, and that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors might only be correlated with better results instead of producing a causation effect.

This point was raised by Ayodele Odutayo, MD, DPhil, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study. But despite that caution, Dr. Odutayo said that he found the study to be encouraging overall and broadly in line with known benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD. 

“The findings are reassuring that the medications work even in people who’ve already had some kidney injury beforehand,” but who are not yet diagnosed with CKD, Dr. Odutayo said. 

“There is vast underuse of these medications in people for whom they are indicated,” perhaps due to clinician concern that the drugs will cause side effects such as low blood pressure or loss of salt and fluid, Dr. Odutayo said. Though those concerns are valid, the benefits of these drugs exceed the risks for most patients with CKD. 

Dr. Wu and Dr. Odutayo report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reducing the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) significantly reduces kidney risk in people with type 2 diabetes, per new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc retrospective analysis of two phase 3 double-blind trials of finerenone in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease
• Quantify the long-term health effects of reducing UACR within 4 months of taking finerenone by examining the records of 12,512 participants with an equal chance of receiving finerenone or placebo
• Isolate the impact of UACR reduction on kidney function and cardiovascular function by tracking health indicators related to the kidneys and the heart in participants for up to 4 years

TAKEAWAY:

• Over half of participants who received finerenone had reduced UACR by at least 30% from the baseline of 514 mg/g at the 4-month point after starting treatment, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 33%.
• By 4 months, a little over a quarter of participants who received the placebo had reduced their UACR levels by at least 30%, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 2.6%.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced kidney risk by 64%, as measured by reductions in kidney failure, sufficient glomerular filtration, and death from kidney disease.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced cardiovascular risk by 26%, as measured by fewer incidences of cardiovascular death, nonfatal infarction or stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.

IN PRACTICE:

“Achieving early UACR reduction can lead to tangible benefits for kidney and cardiovascular health,” the authors note.

SOURCE:

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine; the lead author is Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS.

LIMITATIONS:

The study pertains only to finerenone, so the findings cannot be extrapolated to other drugs with different mechanisms of action.

DISCLOSURES:

Bayer AG Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures finerenone, was the primary funder of the study. The US National Institutes of Health and Veterans Administration also provided funding. Some study authors are full-time employees of Bayer AG. Many authors report consulting relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reducing the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) significantly reduces kidney risk in people with type 2 diabetes, per new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc retrospective analysis of two phase 3 double-blind trials of finerenone in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease
• Quantify the long-term health effects of reducing UACR within 4 months of taking finerenone by examining the records of 12,512 participants with an equal chance of receiving finerenone or placebo
• Isolate the impact of UACR reduction on kidney function and cardiovascular function by tracking health indicators related to the kidneys and the heart in participants for up to 4 years

TAKEAWAY:

• Over half of participants who received finerenone had reduced UACR by at least 30% from the baseline of 514 mg/g at the 4-month point after starting treatment, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 33%.
• By 4 months, a little over a quarter of participants who received the placebo had reduced their UACR levels by at least 30%, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 2.6%.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced kidney risk by 64%, as measured by reductions in kidney failure, sufficient glomerular filtration, and death from kidney disease.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced cardiovascular risk by 26%, as measured by fewer incidences of cardiovascular death, nonfatal infarction or stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.

IN PRACTICE:

“Achieving early UACR reduction can lead to tangible benefits for kidney and cardiovascular health,” the authors note.

SOURCE:

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine; the lead author is Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS.

LIMITATIONS:

The study pertains only to finerenone, so the findings cannot be extrapolated to other drugs with different mechanisms of action.

DISCLOSURES:

Bayer AG Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures finerenone, was the primary funder of the study. The US National Institutes of Health and Veterans Administration also provided funding. Some study authors are full-time employees of Bayer AG. Many authors report consulting relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Reducing the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) significantly reduces kidney risk in people with type 2 diabetes, per new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

METHODOLOGY:

• Post hoc retrospective analysis of two phase 3 double-blind trials of finerenone in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease
• Quantify the long-term health effects of reducing UACR within 4 months of taking finerenone by examining the records of 12,512 participants with an equal chance of receiving finerenone or placebo
• Isolate the impact of UACR reduction on kidney function and cardiovascular function by tracking health indicators related to the kidneys and the heart in participants for up to 4 years

TAKEAWAY:

• Over half of participants who received finerenone had reduced UACR by at least 30% from the baseline of 514 mg/g at the 4-month point after starting treatment, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 33%.
• By 4 months, a little over a quarter of participants who received the placebo had reduced their UACR levels by at least 30%, and the median UACR reduction in this group was 2.6%.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced kidney risk by 64%, as measured by reductions in kidney failure, sufficient glomerular filtration, and death from kidney disease.
• A UACR reduction of at least 30% reduced cardiovascular risk by 26%, as measured by fewer incidences of cardiovascular death, nonfatal infarction or stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.

IN PRACTICE:

“Achieving early UACR reduction can lead to tangible benefits for kidney and cardiovascular health,” the authors note.

SOURCE:

The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine; the lead author is Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS.

LIMITATIONS:

The study pertains only to finerenone, so the findings cannot be extrapolated to other drugs with different mechanisms of action.

DISCLOSURES:

Bayer AG Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures finerenone, was the primary funder of the study. The US National Institutes of Health and Veterans Administration also provided funding. Some study authors are full-time employees of Bayer AG. Many authors report consulting relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

Fecal transplants are safe and effective treatments for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in children, according to a clinical report released by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

However, fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs) should not be used to treat other gastrointestinal ailments such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, because scientific evidence falls short on effectiveness in treating these conditions, the group said.

C. difficile infections (CDIs) are major contributors to hospital-associated diarrhea and diarrhea caused by antibiotics. An FMT involves introducing the feces of a healthy person into the gastrointestinal tract, usually through a nasogastric tube but sometimes in capsules containing healthy stool. Serious adverse reactions associated with an FMT, such as hospitalization, are rare, occuring in roughly 2% of case, the AAP said.

An FMT “does have a place for treatment of recurrent CDIs in children,” said Maria Oliva-Hemker, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and the lead author of the report, which was online in Pediatrics.

The AAP strongly encourages people not to perform an FMT at home, although caregivers may be tempted due to a lack of medical facilities located nearby to deliver this care.

“People might see a video on YouTube and think they can do this themselves,” Dr. Oliva-Hemker said.

An FMT requires screening of donors for any infections, which involves administering questionnaires and analyzing donor blood and stool, which are tasks better suited for medical facilities than for a living room.

No controlled or prospective clinical trials on the efficacy of FMT for children exist, according to the AAP. But a retrospective study published in 2020 showed that one or two courses of FMT prevented CDI recurrence in children 87% of the time. Researchers defined the eradication of CDIs as no recurrence for at least 2 months after an FMT and noted the success rates in children were comaparable to those reported in adults.

Unlike pediatric data, adult data come from a randomized clinical trial.

“Sometimes, kids are the last people to be enrolled in these trials,” said Maribeth Nicholson, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., an author of the 2020 study. 

Dr. Nicholson, who was not involved in the AAP report, said that the retrospective data are strong enough to justify using FMT to eradicate CDIs in children. But researchers are unclear about the biologic mechanisms that make FMTs work. 

Dr. Nicholson said that many therapeutics meant to produce a healthier microbiome are being studied in clinical trials. Any clinical trials of such products should include children, Dr. Nicholson said. A child’s gastrointestinal microbiome is actively developing, Dr. Nicholson added, compared with the relatively stable microbiome of an adult. 

“When we think about the microbiome it makes sense to target kids, because they’re more apt to respond to these therapies. I worry that somebody will say ‘this doesn’t work in adults,’ and it just stops there,” Dr. Nicholson said.

Though the AAP said that the benefits of FMT for treating CDIs are clear, the data available for treating other conditions such as ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease are less convincing. Any child receiving an FMT for these ailments should only do so as part of a clinical trial, the group said.

The AAP report endorses a joint position paper, published in 2019, about the benefits of FMTs for CDIs from North American and European pediatric gastroenterology societies. Dr. Nicholson was an author of this joint statement and hopes that the AAP report raises further awareness among pediatricians that FMTs are a safe and effective treatment for recurrent CDIs.

“This is something that maybe is not as discussed in pediatric circles. Kids need FMTs sometimes,” Dr. Nicholson said.

Dr. Oliva-Hemker and Dr. Nicholson report no relevant financial relationships.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fecal transplants are safe and effective treatments for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in children, according to a clinical report released by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

However, fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs) should not be used to treat other gastrointestinal ailments such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, because scientific evidence falls short on effectiveness in treating these conditions, the group said.

C. difficile infections (CDIs) are major contributors to hospital-associated diarrhea and diarrhea caused by antibiotics. An FMT involves introducing the feces of a healthy person into the gastrointestinal tract, usually through a nasogastric tube but sometimes in capsules containing healthy stool. Serious adverse reactions associated with an FMT, such as hospitalization, are rare, occuring in roughly 2% of case, the AAP said.

An FMT “does have a place for treatment of recurrent CDIs in children,” said Maria Oliva-Hemker, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and the lead author of the report, which was online in Pediatrics.

The AAP strongly encourages people not to perform an FMT at home, although caregivers may be tempted due to a lack of medical facilities located nearby to deliver this care.

“People might see a video on YouTube and think they can do this themselves,” Dr. Oliva-Hemker said.

An FMT requires screening of donors for any infections, which involves administering questionnaires and analyzing donor blood and stool, which are tasks better suited for medical facilities than for a living room.

No controlled or prospective clinical trials on the efficacy of FMT for children exist, according to the AAP. But a retrospective study published in 2020 showed that one or two courses of FMT prevented CDI recurrence in children 87% of the time. Researchers defined the eradication of CDIs as no recurrence for at least 2 months after an FMT and noted the success rates in children were comaparable to those reported in adults.

Unlike pediatric data, adult data come from a randomized clinical trial.

“Sometimes, kids are the last people to be enrolled in these trials,” said Maribeth Nicholson, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., an author of the 2020 study. 

Dr. Nicholson, who was not involved in the AAP report, said that the retrospective data are strong enough to justify using FMT to eradicate CDIs in children. But researchers are unclear about the biologic mechanisms that make FMTs work. 

Dr. Nicholson said that many therapeutics meant to produce a healthier microbiome are being studied in clinical trials. Any clinical trials of such products should include children, Dr. Nicholson said. A child’s gastrointestinal microbiome is actively developing, Dr. Nicholson added, compared with the relatively stable microbiome of an adult. 

“When we think about the microbiome it makes sense to target kids, because they’re more apt to respond to these therapies. I worry that somebody will say ‘this doesn’t work in adults,’ and it just stops there,” Dr. Nicholson said.

Though the AAP said that the benefits of FMT for treating CDIs are clear, the data available for treating other conditions such as ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease are less convincing. Any child receiving an FMT for these ailments should only do so as part of a clinical trial, the group said.

The AAP report endorses a joint position paper, published in 2019, about the benefits of FMTs for CDIs from North American and European pediatric gastroenterology societies. Dr. Nicholson was an author of this joint statement and hopes that the AAP report raises further awareness among pediatricians that FMTs are a safe and effective treatment for recurrent CDIs.

“This is something that maybe is not as discussed in pediatric circles. Kids need FMTs sometimes,” Dr. Nicholson said.

Dr. Oliva-Hemker and Dr. Nicholson report no relevant financial relationships.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fecal transplants are safe and effective treatments for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in children, according to a clinical report released by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

However, fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs) should not be used to treat other gastrointestinal ailments such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, because scientific evidence falls short on effectiveness in treating these conditions, the group said.

C. difficile infections (CDIs) are major contributors to hospital-associated diarrhea and diarrhea caused by antibiotics. An FMT involves introducing the feces of a healthy person into the gastrointestinal tract, usually through a nasogastric tube but sometimes in capsules containing healthy stool. Serious adverse reactions associated with an FMT, such as hospitalization, are rare, occuring in roughly 2% of case, the AAP said.

An FMT “does have a place for treatment of recurrent CDIs in children,” said Maria Oliva-Hemker, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and the lead author of the report, which was online in Pediatrics.

The AAP strongly encourages people not to perform an FMT at home, although caregivers may be tempted due to a lack of medical facilities located nearby to deliver this care.

“People might see a video on YouTube and think they can do this themselves,” Dr. Oliva-Hemker said.

An FMT requires screening of donors for any infections, which involves administering questionnaires and analyzing donor blood and stool, which are tasks better suited for medical facilities than for a living room.

No controlled or prospective clinical trials on the efficacy of FMT for children exist, according to the AAP. But a retrospective study published in 2020 showed that one or two courses of FMT prevented CDI recurrence in children 87% of the time. Researchers defined the eradication of CDIs as no recurrence for at least 2 months after an FMT and noted the success rates in children were comaparable to those reported in adults.

Unlike pediatric data, adult data come from a randomized clinical trial.

“Sometimes, kids are the last people to be enrolled in these trials,” said Maribeth Nicholson, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., an author of the 2020 study. 

Dr. Nicholson, who was not involved in the AAP report, said that the retrospective data are strong enough to justify using FMT to eradicate CDIs in children. But researchers are unclear about the biologic mechanisms that make FMTs work. 

Dr. Nicholson said that many therapeutics meant to produce a healthier microbiome are being studied in clinical trials. Any clinical trials of such products should include children, Dr. Nicholson said. A child’s gastrointestinal microbiome is actively developing, Dr. Nicholson added, compared with the relatively stable microbiome of an adult. 

“When we think about the microbiome it makes sense to target kids, because they’re more apt to respond to these therapies. I worry that somebody will say ‘this doesn’t work in adults,’ and it just stops there,” Dr. Nicholson said.

Though the AAP said that the benefits of FMT for treating CDIs are clear, the data available for treating other conditions such as ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease are less convincing. Any child receiving an FMT for these ailments should only do so as part of a clinical trial, the group said.

The AAP report endorses a joint position paper, published in 2019, about the benefits of FMTs for CDIs from North American and European pediatric gastroenterology societies. Dr. Nicholson was an author of this joint statement and hopes that the AAP report raises further awareness among pediatricians that FMTs are a safe and effective treatment for recurrent CDIs.

“This is something that maybe is not as discussed in pediatric circles. Kids need FMTs sometimes,” Dr. Nicholson said.

Dr. Oliva-Hemker and Dr. Nicholson report no relevant financial relationships.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Good news for people struggling with sensory problems after a bout of COVID-19. Although mild cases of the disease often impair the ability to taste and smell, and the problem can drag on for months, a new study from Italy shows that most people return to their senses, as it were, within 3 years.

“In the vast majority of cases, the loss of the sense of smell is not irreversible,” said Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, MD, a professor of medicine, surgery, and health sciences at the University of Trieste (Italy), and a co-author of the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Dr. Boscolo-Rizzo and his colleagues analyzed data from 88 adults with mild COVID-19, which was defined as having no lower respiratory disease and blood oxygen saturation of 94% or greater. Another group of 88 adults who never contracted the virus but sometimes had difficulties with smell and taste were also studied. In both groups, the average age was 49 years, all participants were White, and 58% were women.

The researchers tested participants’ sense of smell with sticks that contained different odors and checked their sense of taste with strips that had different tastes. Over time, fewer people had difficulty distinguishing odors. Three years after developing COVID-19, only 12 people had impaired smell, compared with 36 people at year 1 and 24 people at year 2. And at the 3-year mark, all participants had at least a partial ability to smell. 

The story was similar with sense of taste, with 10 of 88 people reporting impairments 3 years later. By then, people with COVID-19 were no more likely to have trouble with smell or taste than people who did not get the virus. 

A study this past June showed a strong correlation between severity of COVID-19 symptoms and impaired sense of taste and smell and estimated that millions of Americans maintained altered senses. More than 10% of people in the Italian study still had trouble with smell or taste 3 years later.
 

Emerging treatments, psychological concerns

“We’re seeing fewer people with this problem, but there are still people suffering from it,” said Fernando Carnavali, MD, an internal medicine physician and a site director for the Center for Post-COVID Care at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

Dr. Carnavali wasn’t part of this study, but he did find the new results encouraging, and he called for similar studies in diverse populations that have experienced COVID-19. He also noted that an impaired sense of smell is distressing.

“It really has a significant psychological impact,” Dr. Carnavali said.

He recalled a patient crying in his office because her inability to smell made it impossible for her to cook. Dr. Carnavali recommended clinicians refer patients facing protracted loss of smell or taste to mental health professionals for support.

Treatments are emerging for COVID-19 smell loss. One approach is to inject platelet-rich plasma into a patient’s nasal cavities to help neurons related to smell repair themselves.

A randomized trial showed platelet-rich plasma significantly outperformed placebo in patients with smell loss up to a year after getting COVID-19.

“I wish more people would do it,” said Zara Patel, MD, an otolaryngologist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine, who helped conduct that trial. She said some physicians may be nervous about injecting plasma so close to the skull and are therefore hesitant to try this approach. 

Another technique may help to address the olfactory condition known as parosmia, in which patients generally experience a benign odor as rancid, according to otolaryngologist Nyssa Farrell, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Farrell said around two-thirds of patients who contract COVID-19 develop the condition, and the rates of long-term parosmia range from 10%-50% depending on various studies.

“It is almost always foul; this can profoundly affect someone’s quality of life,” impairing their ability to eat or to be intimate with a partner who now smells unpleasant, said Dr. Farrell, who wasn’t associated with this research.

The treatment, called a stellate ganglion block, is provided through a shot into nerves in the neck. People with parosmia associated with COVID-19 often report that this method cures them. Dr. Patel said that may be because their psychological health is improving, not their sense of smell, because the area of the body where the stellate ganglion block is applied is not part of the olfactory system.

Earlier this year, Dr. Farrell and colleagues reported that parosmia linked to COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. 

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Smell and Taste Lab, Takasago, Baia Foods, and Frequency Therapeutics. The other authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Routine screenings for signs of cavities and gum disease by primary care clinicians may not catch patients most at risk of these conditions, according to a statement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that was published in JAMA.

Suggesting ways to improve oral health also may fail to engage the patients who most need the message, the group said in its statement.

The task force is not suggesting that primary care providers stop all oral health screening of adults or that they never discuss ways to improve oral health. But the current evidence of the most effective oral health screenings or enhancement strategies in primary care settings received an “I” rating, for “Inconclusive.” The highest ranking a screening can receive is an “A” or “B,” which indicate that there is strong evidence for conducting a screening, while a “C” would indicate that clinicians could rarely provide a screening, and a “D” would indicate not to, given the current evidence.

Primary care clinicians should immediately refer any patients with apparent caries or gum disease to a dentist, the USPSTF noted. But what clinicians should do for patients who have no obvious oral health problems is up for debate.

“The ‘I’ is a note about where the evidence is at this point and then a call for more research to see if we can’t get some more clarity for next time,” said John Ruiz, PhD, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is a member of the task force.

More than 90% of U.S. adults may have caries, including 26% with untreated caries that can cause serious infections or tooth loss. In addition, 42% of adults have some type of gum disease. More than two-thirds of Americans aged 65 or older have gum disease, and it is the leading cause of tooth loss in this population. People earning low incomes and those who do not have health insurance or who belong to a marginalized racial or ethnic group are at greater risk of the harms of caries and gum disease.

“Oral health care is important to overall health,” and any new research on oral health screening and enhancement efforts should be demographically representative of adults affected by these conditions, Dr. Ruiz said.

In an accompanying editorial, oral health researchers from the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, San Francisco, echoed the call for representative research and encouraged closer collaboration between primary care providers and dentists to promote oral health.

“Oral health screening and referral by medical primary care clinicians can help ensure that individuals get to the dental chair to receive needed interventions that can benefit both oral and potentially overall health,” the authors wrote. “Likewise, medical challenges and oral mucosal manifestations of chronic health conditions detected at a dental visit should result in medical referral, allowing prompt evaluation and treatment.”
 

Lack of data

The USPSTF defined oral health screenings for patients older than 18 who have no obvious signs of caries or gum disease as looking at a patient’s mouth during physical exams. Additionally, clinicians might use prediction models to identify patients at greater risk of facing these problems.

Strategies to improve oral health include providing encouragement to patients to reduce intake of refined sugar, to floss and brush effectively to reduce bacteria, and to use fluoride gels, fluoride varnishes, or other kinds of sealants to make caries harder to form.

A literature review found that there has been limited analysis of primary care clinicians performing these tasks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, more such studies about dentists existed, leaving an open field for dedicated studies about what primary care clinicians should do to optimize oral health with patients.

“Clinicians, in the absence of clear guidelines, should continue to use their best judgment,” Dr. Ruiz said.

One dentist interviewed said screening could be as simple as doctors asking patients how often they brush their teeth and giving patients a toothbrush as part of the office visit.

“It all comes down to, ‘Is the person brushing their teeth?’ ” said Jennifer Hartshorn, DDS, who specializes in community and preventive dentistry at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“By all means look in their mouth, ask how much they are brushing, and urge them to find a dental home if at all possible,” Dr. Hartshorn said, especially for patients who smoke or have conditions such as dry mouth, which can increase the risk of oral disease.

Dr. Ruiz and Dr. Hartshorn report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Routine screenings for signs of cavities and gum disease by primary care clinicians may not catch patients most at risk of these conditions, according to a statement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that was published in JAMA.

Suggesting ways to improve oral health also may fail to engage the patients who most need the message, the group said in its statement.

The task force is not suggesting that primary care providers stop all oral health screening of adults or that they never discuss ways to improve oral health. But the current evidence of the most effective oral health screenings or enhancement strategies in primary care settings received an “I” rating, for “Inconclusive.” The highest ranking a screening can receive is an “A” or “B,” which indicate that there is strong evidence for conducting a screening, while a “C” would indicate that clinicians could rarely provide a screening, and a “D” would indicate not to, given the current evidence.

Primary care clinicians should immediately refer any patients with apparent caries or gum disease to a dentist, the USPSTF noted. But what clinicians should do for patients who have no obvious oral health problems is up for debate.

“The ‘I’ is a note about where the evidence is at this point and then a call for more research to see if we can’t get some more clarity for next time,” said John Ruiz, PhD, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is a member of the task force.

More than 90% of U.S. adults may have caries, including 26% with untreated caries that can cause serious infections or tooth loss. In addition, 42% of adults have some type of gum disease. More than two-thirds of Americans aged 65 or older have gum disease, and it is the leading cause of tooth loss in this population. People earning low incomes and those who do not have health insurance or who belong to a marginalized racial or ethnic group are at greater risk of the harms of caries and gum disease.

“Oral health care is important to overall health,” and any new research on oral health screening and enhancement efforts should be demographically representative of adults affected by these conditions, Dr. Ruiz said.

In an accompanying editorial, oral health researchers from the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, San Francisco, echoed the call for representative research and encouraged closer collaboration between primary care providers and dentists to promote oral health.

“Oral health screening and referral by medical primary care clinicians can help ensure that individuals get to the dental chair to receive needed interventions that can benefit both oral and potentially overall health,” the authors wrote. “Likewise, medical challenges and oral mucosal manifestations of chronic health conditions detected at a dental visit should result in medical referral, allowing prompt evaluation and treatment.”
 

Lack of data

The USPSTF defined oral health screenings for patients older than 18 who have no obvious signs of caries or gum disease as looking at a patient’s mouth during physical exams. Additionally, clinicians might use prediction models to identify patients at greater risk of facing these problems.

Strategies to improve oral health include providing encouragement to patients to reduce intake of refined sugar, to floss and brush effectively to reduce bacteria, and to use fluoride gels, fluoride varnishes, or other kinds of sealants to make caries harder to form.

A literature review found that there has been limited analysis of primary care clinicians performing these tasks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, more such studies about dentists existed, leaving an open field for dedicated studies about what primary care clinicians should do to optimize oral health with patients.

“Clinicians, in the absence of clear guidelines, should continue to use their best judgment,” Dr. Ruiz said.

One dentist interviewed said screening could be as simple as doctors asking patients how often they brush their teeth and giving patients a toothbrush as part of the office visit.

“It all comes down to, ‘Is the person brushing their teeth?’ ” said Jennifer Hartshorn, DDS, who specializes in community and preventive dentistry at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“By all means look in their mouth, ask how much they are brushing, and urge them to find a dental home if at all possible,” Dr. Hartshorn said, especially for patients who smoke or have conditions such as dry mouth, which can increase the risk of oral disease.

Dr. Ruiz and Dr. Hartshorn report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Routine screenings for signs of cavities and gum disease by primary care clinicians may not catch patients most at risk of these conditions, according to a statement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that was published in JAMA.

Suggesting ways to improve oral health also may fail to engage the patients who most need the message, the group said in its statement.

The task force is not suggesting that primary care providers stop all oral health screening of adults or that they never discuss ways to improve oral health. But the current evidence of the most effective oral health screenings or enhancement strategies in primary care settings received an “I” rating, for “Inconclusive.” The highest ranking a screening can receive is an “A” or “B,” which indicate that there is strong evidence for conducting a screening, while a “C” would indicate that clinicians could rarely provide a screening, and a “D” would indicate not to, given the current evidence.

Primary care clinicians should immediately refer any patients with apparent caries or gum disease to a dentist, the USPSTF noted. But what clinicians should do for patients who have no obvious oral health problems is up for debate.

“The ‘I’ is a note about where the evidence is at this point and then a call for more research to see if we can’t get some more clarity for next time,” said John Ruiz, PhD, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is a member of the task force.

More than 90% of U.S. adults may have caries, including 26% with untreated caries that can cause serious infections or tooth loss. In addition, 42% of adults have some type of gum disease. More than two-thirds of Americans aged 65 or older have gum disease, and it is the leading cause of tooth loss in this population. People earning low incomes and those who do not have health insurance or who belong to a marginalized racial or ethnic group are at greater risk of the harms of caries and gum disease.

“Oral health care is important to overall health,” and any new research on oral health screening and enhancement efforts should be demographically representative of adults affected by these conditions, Dr. Ruiz said.

In an accompanying editorial, oral health researchers from the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, San Francisco, echoed the call for representative research and encouraged closer collaboration between primary care providers and dentists to promote oral health.

“Oral health screening and referral by medical primary care clinicians can help ensure that individuals get to the dental chair to receive needed interventions that can benefit both oral and potentially overall health,” the authors wrote. “Likewise, medical challenges and oral mucosal manifestations of chronic health conditions detected at a dental visit should result in medical referral, allowing prompt evaluation and treatment.”
 

Lack of data

The USPSTF defined oral health screenings for patients older than 18 who have no obvious signs of caries or gum disease as looking at a patient’s mouth during physical exams. Additionally, clinicians might use prediction models to identify patients at greater risk of facing these problems.

Strategies to improve oral health include providing encouragement to patients to reduce intake of refined sugar, to floss and brush effectively to reduce bacteria, and to use fluoride gels, fluoride varnishes, or other kinds of sealants to make caries harder to form.

A literature review found that there has been limited analysis of primary care clinicians performing these tasks. Perhaps unsurprisingly, more such studies about dentists existed, leaving an open field for dedicated studies about what primary care clinicians should do to optimize oral health with patients.

“Clinicians, in the absence of clear guidelines, should continue to use their best judgment,” Dr. Ruiz said.

One dentist interviewed said screening could be as simple as doctors asking patients how often they brush their teeth and giving patients a toothbrush as part of the office visit.

“It all comes down to, ‘Is the person brushing their teeth?’ ” said Jennifer Hartshorn, DDS, who specializes in community and preventive dentistry at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.

“By all means look in their mouth, ask how much they are brushing, and urge them to find a dental home if at all possible,” Dr. Hartshorn said, especially for patients who smoke or have conditions such as dry mouth, which can increase the risk of oral disease.

Dr. Ruiz and Dr. Hartshorn report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As of 2023, most people eligible for Medicare are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans administered by commercial insurers, rather than traditional Medicare plans sponsored by the federal government. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 31 million people are now enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, with almost half of them (47%) served by United Healthcare or Humana.

This is 51% of all people eligible for Medicare, compared with 19% in 2007. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 62% of Medicare participants will be in Medicare Advantage plans by 2033.

Given the explosive growth in Medicare Advantage participation, many readers have likely seen patients served by Medicare Advantage or will soon. Below is information about the program’s purpose, strengths, limitations, and effect on physicians.

How does Medicare Advantage differ from traditional Medicare?

A Medicare Advantage plan is approved by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and competes for customers by offering lower premiums and/or more benefits. Traditional Medicare plans are unified contracts across the country, with the same fees for the same services paid nationwide.

CMS pays Medicare Advantage plans a per-member rate, which can be increased for people who seem sicker than other plan participants – for example, someone with uncontrolled diabetes and multiple comorbidities. This so-called “risk adjustment” doesn’t exist in traditional Medicare.

CMS also gives incentive payments to Medicare Advantage plans whose members receive better care, measured by such metrics as lower unnecessary hospital admissions. There are some analogues to this in traditional Medicare, such as the Making Care Primary program, but value-based care is a larger component of Medicare Advantage.

“Being paid for outcomes is what we as physicians always thought we went into medicine to do,” said Sarah Candler, MD, an internist in Houston. She most recently worked for One Medical and her experiences with Veterans Affairs and One Medical focused on value-based contracts, including for Medicare Advantage plans.

How do patients benefit from Medicare Advantage?

“Honestly the financial benefits to patients are what’s really driving the rise in Medicare Advantage,” said

Claire Ankuda, MD, MPH, is a geriatrician at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York who has published extensively about Medicare Advantage.

A spokesperson for Highmark Health, which provides Medicare Advantage plans, told us that “Medicare Advantage plans are offered by private health insurers, such as Highmark, and typically offer benefits that support members’ total health, such as low-cost access to doctors and preventive care, and cover things like prescription drugs, vision, and hearing services, dental, and chiropractic care. Medicare Advantage plans also protect members from unforeseen costs like hospitalizations, surgery, or an expensive drug. And unlike traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans can offer set copays for doctor’s visits (rather than coinsurance) to help members budget for their costs.”

Dr. Ankuda said hospitalization costs are sometimes higher for Medicare Advantage but agreed that costs for doctor visits are often lower with Medicare Advantage plans than with traditional Medicare.

So while the overarching goal of Medicare Advantage makes sense, Dr. Candler said, the actual physician experience of working with Medicare Advantage can be challenging.

What challenges might physicians experience when treating patients in a Medicare Advantage plan?

“The plan itself has control over what it will pay for and they’re much more aggressive about it than traditional Medicare,” Dr. Candler said. Medicare Advantage plans are often structured as health maintenance organizations, with narrow provider networks and extensive prior authorization requirements.

Dr. Candler gave an example of a plan that offers transportation to medical appointments – a seemingly great benefit. But what if someone needs to see a cardiologist and the only cardiologist within the plan is 100 miles away? That’s too far for the transportation benefit, it turns out.

Or a Medicare Advantage plan requires a physician to first do a physical exam before ordering an MRI, even though in the physician’s judgment only the MRI will have diagnostic value. Or the plan denies coverage for a service that’s already occurred. These practices aim to weed out unnecessary care but at the cost of patient confusion or physician time in arguing why something should be covered.

“The argument from us as physicians would be, ‘Just trust us to practice good medicine,’” Dr. Candler said.

Beside these concerns at the physician level, the regulations surrounding Medicare Advantage plans may open the door to billing fraud.

How do Medicare Advantage Plans interact with diagnosis codes?

“I just can’t stand when I see fraud in the health care system,” said Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, an internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a health policy professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

This July, Dr. Keating published a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine about a patient of hers whose health insurer – a Medicare Advantage plan – claimed had diabetes with comorbidities and was morbidly obese. None of this was true. But submitting such diagnoses to CMS would suggest that Dr. Keating’s patient was especially ill, leading to greater reimbursements from CMS for covering her care.

“I’m not averse to paying plans that are taking care of sicker patients more, but we need to figure out who those patients truly are,” Dr. Keating said.

“It is absolutely true and widely proven that Medicare Advantage plans do a lot of clever things” to inflate diagnoses, added Dr. Ankuda. Also, she said that Medicare Advantage plan representatives would say this is legitimate work, as the entire point of Medicare Advantage is to pay more for caring for sicker patients.

“I don’t think anyone here is acting in bad faith. It’s just that [there are] very different incentives,” Dr. Ankuda said.

How can Medicare Advantage be improved?

Dr. Keating believes that CMS should reduce the number of diagnosis codes allowed within Medicare Advantage to thwart the potential for upcoding. Dr. Ankuda thinks the biggest problem is that there is no good way for patients to choose among Medicare Advantage plans.

“I don’t see it as Medicare Advantage is bad or Medicare Advantage is good. MA plans are incredibly diverse,” Dr. Ankuda said. The problem is that it’s very hard for patients to tell which plans are delivering the best care, what their out-of-pocket costs will actually be, or how often a plan denies payment.

Dr. Ankuda argues for much more data transparency around such plan factors.

Dr. Candler and Dr. Ankuda had no relevant conflicts. Dr. Keating is a consultant to the Research Triangle Institute, which advises CMS about Medicare Advantage billing codes.

As of 2023, most people eligible for Medicare are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans administered by commercial insurers, rather than traditional Medicare plans sponsored by the federal government. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 31 million people are now enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, with almost half of them (47%) served by United Healthcare or Humana.

This is 51% of all people eligible for Medicare, compared with 19% in 2007. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 62% of Medicare participants will be in Medicare Advantage plans by 2033.

Given the explosive growth in Medicare Advantage participation, many readers have likely seen patients served by Medicare Advantage or will soon. Below is information about the program’s purpose, strengths, limitations, and effect on physicians.

How does Medicare Advantage differ from traditional Medicare?

A Medicare Advantage plan is approved by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and competes for customers by offering lower premiums and/or more benefits. Traditional Medicare plans are unified contracts across the country, with the same fees for the same services paid nationwide.

CMS pays Medicare Advantage plans a per-member rate, which can be increased for people who seem sicker than other plan participants – for example, someone with uncontrolled diabetes and multiple comorbidities. This so-called “risk adjustment” doesn’t exist in traditional Medicare.

CMS also gives incentive payments to Medicare Advantage plans whose members receive better care, measured by such metrics as lower unnecessary hospital admissions. There are some analogues to this in traditional Medicare, such as the Making Care Primary program, but value-based care is a larger component of Medicare Advantage.

“Being paid for outcomes is what we as physicians always thought we went into medicine to do,” said Sarah Candler, MD, an internist in Houston. She most recently worked for One Medical and her experiences with Veterans Affairs and One Medical focused on value-based contracts, including for Medicare Advantage plans.

How do patients benefit from Medicare Advantage?

“Honestly the financial benefits to patients are what’s really driving the rise in Medicare Advantage,” said

Claire Ankuda, MD, MPH, is a geriatrician at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York who has published extensively about Medicare Advantage.

A spokesperson for Highmark Health, which provides Medicare Advantage plans, told us that “Medicare Advantage plans are offered by private health insurers, such as Highmark, and typically offer benefits that support members’ total health, such as low-cost access to doctors and preventive care, and cover things like prescription drugs, vision, and hearing services, dental, and chiropractic care. Medicare Advantage plans also protect members from unforeseen costs like hospitalizations, surgery, or an expensive drug. And unlike traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans can offer set copays for doctor’s visits (rather than coinsurance) to help members budget for their costs.”

Dr. Ankuda said hospitalization costs are sometimes higher for Medicare Advantage but agreed that costs for doctor visits are often lower with Medicare Advantage plans than with traditional Medicare.

So while the overarching goal of Medicare Advantage makes sense, Dr. Candler said, the actual physician experience of working with Medicare Advantage can be challenging.

What challenges might physicians experience when treating patients in a Medicare Advantage plan?

“The plan itself has control over what it will pay for and they’re much more aggressive about it than traditional Medicare,” Dr. Candler said. Medicare Advantage plans are often structured as health maintenance organizations, with narrow provider networks and extensive prior authorization requirements.

Dr. Candler gave an example of a plan that offers transportation to medical appointments – a seemingly great benefit. But what if someone needs to see a cardiologist and the only cardiologist within the plan is 100 miles away? That’s too far for the transportation benefit, it turns out.

Or a Medicare Advantage plan requires a physician to first do a physical exam before ordering an MRI, even though in the physician’s judgment only the MRI will have diagnostic value. Or the plan denies coverage for a service that’s already occurred. These practices aim to weed out unnecessary care but at the cost of patient confusion or physician time in arguing why something should be covered.

“The argument from us as physicians would be, ‘Just trust us to practice good medicine,’” Dr. Candler said.

Beside these concerns at the physician level, the regulations surrounding Medicare Advantage plans may open the door to billing fraud.

How do Medicare Advantage Plans interact with diagnosis codes?

“I just can’t stand when I see fraud in the health care system,” said Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, an internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a health policy professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

This July, Dr. Keating published a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine about a patient of hers whose health insurer – a Medicare Advantage plan – claimed had diabetes with comorbidities and was morbidly obese. None of this was true. But submitting such diagnoses to CMS would suggest that Dr. Keating’s patient was especially ill, leading to greater reimbursements from CMS for covering her care.

“I’m not averse to paying plans that are taking care of sicker patients more, but we need to figure out who those patients truly are,” Dr. Keating said.

“It is absolutely true and widely proven that Medicare Advantage plans do a lot of clever things” to inflate diagnoses, added Dr. Ankuda. Also, she said that Medicare Advantage plan representatives would say this is legitimate work, as the entire point of Medicare Advantage is to pay more for caring for sicker patients.

“I don’t think anyone here is acting in bad faith. It’s just that [there are] very different incentives,” Dr. Ankuda said.

How can Medicare Advantage be improved?

Dr. Keating believes that CMS should reduce the number of diagnosis codes allowed within Medicare Advantage to thwart the potential for upcoding. Dr. Ankuda thinks the biggest problem is that there is no good way for patients to choose among Medicare Advantage plans.

“I don’t see it as Medicare Advantage is bad or Medicare Advantage is good. MA plans are incredibly diverse,” Dr. Ankuda said. The problem is that it’s very hard for patients to tell which plans are delivering the best care, what their out-of-pocket costs will actually be, or how often a plan denies payment.

Dr. Ankuda argues for much more data transparency around such plan factors.

Dr. Candler and Dr. Ankuda had no relevant conflicts. Dr. Keating is a consultant to the Research Triangle Institute, which advises CMS about Medicare Advantage billing codes.

As of 2023, most people eligible for Medicare are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans administered by commercial insurers, rather than traditional Medicare plans sponsored by the federal government. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 31 million people are now enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, with almost half of them (47%) served by United Healthcare or Humana.

This is 51% of all people eligible for Medicare, compared with 19% in 2007. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 62% of Medicare participants will be in Medicare Advantage plans by 2033.

Given the explosive growth in Medicare Advantage participation, many readers have likely seen patients served by Medicare Advantage or will soon. Below is information about the program’s purpose, strengths, limitations, and effect on physicians.

How does Medicare Advantage differ from traditional Medicare?

A Medicare Advantage plan is approved by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and competes for customers by offering lower premiums and/or more benefits. Traditional Medicare plans are unified contracts across the country, with the same fees for the same services paid nationwide.

CMS pays Medicare Advantage plans a per-member rate, which can be increased for people who seem sicker than other plan participants – for example, someone with uncontrolled diabetes and multiple comorbidities. This so-called “risk adjustment” doesn’t exist in traditional Medicare.

CMS also gives incentive payments to Medicare Advantage plans whose members receive better care, measured by such metrics as lower unnecessary hospital admissions. There are some analogues to this in traditional Medicare, such as the Making Care Primary program, but value-based care is a larger component of Medicare Advantage.

“Being paid for outcomes is what we as physicians always thought we went into medicine to do,” said Sarah Candler, MD, an internist in Houston. She most recently worked for One Medical and her experiences with Veterans Affairs and One Medical focused on value-based contracts, including for Medicare Advantage plans.

How do patients benefit from Medicare Advantage?

“Honestly the financial benefits to patients are what’s really driving the rise in Medicare Advantage,” said

Claire Ankuda, MD, MPH, is a geriatrician at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai in New York who has published extensively about Medicare Advantage.

A spokesperson for Highmark Health, which provides Medicare Advantage plans, told us that “Medicare Advantage plans are offered by private health insurers, such as Highmark, and typically offer benefits that support members’ total health, such as low-cost access to doctors and preventive care, and cover things like prescription drugs, vision, and hearing services, dental, and chiropractic care. Medicare Advantage plans also protect members from unforeseen costs like hospitalizations, surgery, or an expensive drug. And unlike traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans can offer set copays for doctor’s visits (rather than coinsurance) to help members budget for their costs.”

Dr. Ankuda said hospitalization costs are sometimes higher for Medicare Advantage but agreed that costs for doctor visits are often lower with Medicare Advantage plans than with traditional Medicare.

So while the overarching goal of Medicare Advantage makes sense, Dr. Candler said, the actual physician experience of working with Medicare Advantage can be challenging.

What challenges might physicians experience when treating patients in a Medicare Advantage plan?

“The plan itself has control over what it will pay for and they’re much more aggressive about it than traditional Medicare,” Dr. Candler said. Medicare Advantage plans are often structured as health maintenance organizations, with narrow provider networks and extensive prior authorization requirements.

Dr. Candler gave an example of a plan that offers transportation to medical appointments – a seemingly great benefit. But what if someone needs to see a cardiologist and the only cardiologist within the plan is 100 miles away? That’s too far for the transportation benefit, it turns out.

Or a Medicare Advantage plan requires a physician to first do a physical exam before ordering an MRI, even though in the physician’s judgment only the MRI will have diagnostic value. Or the plan denies coverage for a service that’s already occurred. These practices aim to weed out unnecessary care but at the cost of patient confusion or physician time in arguing why something should be covered.

“The argument from us as physicians would be, ‘Just trust us to practice good medicine,’” Dr. Candler said.

Beside these concerns at the physician level, the regulations surrounding Medicare Advantage plans may open the door to billing fraud.

How do Medicare Advantage Plans interact with diagnosis codes?

“I just can’t stand when I see fraud in the health care system,” said Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, an internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a health policy professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

This July, Dr. Keating published a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine about a patient of hers whose health insurer – a Medicare Advantage plan – claimed had diabetes with comorbidities and was morbidly obese. None of this was true. But submitting such diagnoses to CMS would suggest that Dr. Keating’s patient was especially ill, leading to greater reimbursements from CMS for covering her care.

“I’m not averse to paying plans that are taking care of sicker patients more, but we need to figure out who those patients truly are,” Dr. Keating said.

“It is absolutely true and widely proven that Medicare Advantage plans do a lot of clever things” to inflate diagnoses, added Dr. Ankuda. Also, she said that Medicare Advantage plan representatives would say this is legitimate work, as the entire point of Medicare Advantage is to pay more for caring for sicker patients.

“I don’t think anyone here is acting in bad faith. It’s just that [there are] very different incentives,” Dr. Ankuda said.

How can Medicare Advantage be improved?

Dr. Keating believes that CMS should reduce the number of diagnosis codes allowed within Medicare Advantage to thwart the potential for upcoding. Dr. Ankuda thinks the biggest problem is that there is no good way for patients to choose among Medicare Advantage plans.

“I don’t see it as Medicare Advantage is bad or Medicare Advantage is good. MA plans are incredibly diverse,” Dr. Ankuda said. The problem is that it’s very hard for patients to tell which plans are delivering the best care, what their out-of-pocket costs will actually be, or how often a plan denies payment.

Dr. Ankuda argues for much more data transparency around such plan factors.

Dr. Candler and Dr. Ankuda had no relevant conflicts. Dr. Keating is a consultant to the Research Triangle Institute, which advises CMS about Medicare Advantage billing codes.