While sick at home with a 26-day symptomatic course of COVID-19 in March 2020, I watched the surge unfold in my state and the hospital where I work as an inpatient adult medicine physician. Although the preponderance of my professional life is dedicated to leading teams in implementing delivery system transformation, the hat I wore in that moment involved living through and keeping up with the changes around me. Once I recovered and returned to the arena as a COVID doctor, I adapted to and made changes during constant shifts in how we provided care.

Looking back on those months during the worst of the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, I reflect on the factors that helped me, as a frontline and shift-work clinician, adapt to and make those changes. In reflecting on the elements that were meaningful to me during the crisis, I recognize a set of change-enabling factors that have broad relevance for those of us who work to improve outcomes for patients and populations.

Confidence engendered by liberating data

In the early days of the surge, there was much uncertainty, and unfortunately, some seriously imperfect messaging. Trust was broken or badly bruised for many frontline clinicians. I share this painful phase not to criticize, but rather reflect on what mattered to me during that crisis of confidence. It was data. Raw, unadjusted, best-available data. Produced and pushed out. Available, trended over time, telling the story of where we are, now. Counts of tests, beds, and ventilators. The consistent, transparent availability of relevant and straightforward data provided an active antidote to a sense of uncertainty during a crisis of confidence.

Personal practice change stimulated by relevance and urgency

For half a decade, I have been encouraging interdisciplinary inpatient teams to identify and actively engage the family and/or care partner as a member of the care team. Despite even the American Association of Retired Persons mobilizing an impressive regulatory approach in 32 states to require that family and/or care partners are included as such, the practice change efforts continued on a slow and steady path. Why? We just didn’t believe it was of urgent, relevant, mission-critical importance to our daily practice to do so. That all changed in March 2020.

Without needing to be told, educated, or incentivized, my first night as a COVID doctor found me calling every single patient’s family upon admission, regardless of what time it was. It was critical to review the diagnosis, transparently discuss the uncertainty regarding the upcoming hours and days, review the potential contingencies, and ask, right there and then, whether intubation is consistent with goals of care. It was that urgent and relevant. Without exception, families were grateful for the effort and candor.

The significance of this practice—undoubtedly adopted by every inpatient provider who has worked a COVID surge—is rooted in decades of academic deliberation on which is the “right” doctor to have these discussions. None of that mattered. Historical opinions changed due to what was urgent and relevant given the situation at hand and the job we had to do. Imagine, for example, what we could do and how we could change if we now consider it urgent and relevant to identify and mobilize enhanced services and supports to patients who experience inequities because we believe it to be mission-critical to the job we show up to do every day.

Change fostered by a creative problem-solving ecosystem

Embracing personal practice change was made easier and implicitly affirmed by the creative problem solving that occurred everywhere. Tents, drive-throughs, and even college field houses were now settings of care. Primary care physicians, cardiologists, and gastrointestinal (GI) and postanesthesia care nurses staffed the COVID floors. Rolling stands held iPads so staff could communicate with patients without entering the room. This creative ecosystem fostered individual practice change. No debates were needed to recognize that standard processes were inadequate. No single role or service of any discipline was singularly asked to change to meet the needs of the moment. Because of this ecosystem of creative, active change, there was a much greater flexibility among individuals, role types, departments, and disciplines to change. This is particularly poignant to me in light of the work I lead to improve care for patients who experience systemic inequities in our health care system. When we ask a single role type or discipline to change, it can be met with resistance; far more success is achieved when we engage an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to change. When surrounded by others making change, it makes us more willing to change, too.

 

 

Change catalyzed teamwork

It is so often invoked that health care is a team sport. In practicality, while we may aspire to work as a team, health care delivery is still all too often comprised of a set of individual actors with individualized responsibilities trying to communicate the best they can with each other.

What I experienced during the surge at my hospital was the very best version of teamwork I have ever been a part of in health care: empathetic, mutually interdependent strangers coming together during daily changes in staffing, processes, and resources. I will never forget nights walking into the pediatric floor or day surgery recovery area—now repurposed as a COVID unit—to entirely new faces comprised of GI suite nurses, outpatient doctors, and moonlighting intensivists.

We were all new to each other, all new to working in this setting, and all new to whatever the newest changes of the day brought. I will never forget how we greeted each other and introduced ourselves. We asked each other where we were “from,” and held a genuine appreciation to each other for being there. Imagine how this impacted how we worked together. Looking back on those night shifts, I remember us as a truly interdependent team. I will endeavor to bring that sense of mutual regard and interdependency into my work to foster effective interdisciplinary and cross-continuum teamwork.

Takeaways

As a student and practitioner of delivery system transformation, I am often in conversations about imperfect data, incomplete evidence, and role-specific and organizational resistance to change. As an acute care provider during the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, the experiences I had as a participant in the COVID-related delivery system change will stay with me as I lead value-based delivery system change. What worked in an infectious disease crisis holds great relevance to our pressing, urgent, relevant work to create a more person-centered, equitable, and value-based delivery system.

I am confident that if those of us seeking to improve outcomes use visible and accessible data to engender confidence, clearly link practice change to the relevant and urgent issue at hand, promote broadly visible creative problem solving to foster an ecosystem of change, and cultivate empathy and mutual interdependence to promote the teamwork we aspire to have, that we will foster meaningful progress in our efforts to improve care for patients and populations.

Corresponding author: Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, President, Collaborative Healthcare Strategies, Lexington, MA; amy@collaborativehealthcarestrategies.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

While sick at home with a 26-day symptomatic course of COVID-19 in March 2020, I watched the surge unfold in my state and the hospital where I work as an inpatient adult medicine physician. Although the preponderance of my professional life is dedicated to leading teams in implementing delivery system transformation, the hat I wore in that moment involved living through and keeping up with the changes around me. Once I recovered and returned to the arena as a COVID doctor, I adapted to and made changes during constant shifts in how we provided care.

Looking back on those months during the worst of the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, I reflect on the factors that helped me, as a frontline and shift-work clinician, adapt to and make those changes. In reflecting on the elements that were meaningful to me during the crisis, I recognize a set of change-enabling factors that have broad relevance for those of us who work to improve outcomes for patients and populations.

Confidence engendered by liberating data

In the early days of the surge, there was much uncertainty, and unfortunately, some seriously imperfect messaging. Trust was broken or badly bruised for many frontline clinicians. I share this painful phase not to criticize, but rather reflect on what mattered to me during that crisis of confidence. It was data. Raw, unadjusted, best-available data. Produced and pushed out. Available, trended over time, telling the story of where we are, now. Counts of tests, beds, and ventilators. The consistent, transparent availability of relevant and straightforward data provided an active antidote to a sense of uncertainty during a crisis of confidence.

Personal practice change stimulated by relevance and urgency

For half a decade, I have been encouraging interdisciplinary inpatient teams to identify and actively engage the family and/or care partner as a member of the care team. Despite even the American Association of Retired Persons mobilizing an impressive regulatory approach in 32 states to require that family and/or care partners are included as such, the practice change efforts continued on a slow and steady path. Why? We just didn’t believe it was of urgent, relevant, mission-critical importance to our daily practice to do so. That all changed in March 2020.

Without needing to be told, educated, or incentivized, my first night as a COVID doctor found me calling every single patient’s family upon admission, regardless of what time it was. It was critical to review the diagnosis, transparently discuss the uncertainty regarding the upcoming hours and days, review the potential contingencies, and ask, right there and then, whether intubation is consistent with goals of care. It was that urgent and relevant. Without exception, families were grateful for the effort and candor.

The significance of this practice—undoubtedly adopted by every inpatient provider who has worked a COVID surge—is rooted in decades of academic deliberation on which is the “right” doctor to have these discussions. None of that mattered. Historical opinions changed due to what was urgent and relevant given the situation at hand and the job we had to do. Imagine, for example, what we could do and how we could change if we now consider it urgent and relevant to identify and mobilize enhanced services and supports to patients who experience inequities because we believe it to be mission-critical to the job we show up to do every day.

Change fostered by a creative problem-solving ecosystem

Embracing personal practice change was made easier and implicitly affirmed by the creative problem solving that occurred everywhere. Tents, drive-throughs, and even college field houses were now settings of care. Primary care physicians, cardiologists, and gastrointestinal (GI) and postanesthesia care nurses staffed the COVID floors. Rolling stands held iPads so staff could communicate with patients without entering the room. This creative ecosystem fostered individual practice change. No debates were needed to recognize that standard processes were inadequate. No single role or service of any discipline was singularly asked to change to meet the needs of the moment. Because of this ecosystem of creative, active change, there was a much greater flexibility among individuals, role types, departments, and disciplines to change. This is particularly poignant to me in light of the work I lead to improve care for patients who experience systemic inequities in our health care system. When we ask a single role type or discipline to change, it can be met with resistance; far more success is achieved when we engage an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to change. When surrounded by others making change, it makes us more willing to change, too.

 

 

Change catalyzed teamwork

It is so often invoked that health care is a team sport. In practicality, while we may aspire to work as a team, health care delivery is still all too often comprised of a set of individual actors with individualized responsibilities trying to communicate the best they can with each other.

What I experienced during the surge at my hospital was the very best version of teamwork I have ever been a part of in health care: empathetic, mutually interdependent strangers coming together during daily changes in staffing, processes, and resources. I will never forget nights walking into the pediatric floor or day surgery recovery area—now repurposed as a COVID unit—to entirely new faces comprised of GI suite nurses, outpatient doctors, and moonlighting intensivists.

We were all new to each other, all new to working in this setting, and all new to whatever the newest changes of the day brought. I will never forget how we greeted each other and introduced ourselves. We asked each other where we were “from,” and held a genuine appreciation to each other for being there. Imagine how this impacted how we worked together. Looking back on those night shifts, I remember us as a truly interdependent team. I will endeavor to bring that sense of mutual regard and interdependency into my work to foster effective interdisciplinary and cross-continuum teamwork.

Takeaways

As a student and practitioner of delivery system transformation, I am often in conversations about imperfect data, incomplete evidence, and role-specific and organizational resistance to change. As an acute care provider during the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, the experiences I had as a participant in the COVID-related delivery system change will stay with me as I lead value-based delivery system change. What worked in an infectious disease crisis holds great relevance to our pressing, urgent, relevant work to create a more person-centered, equitable, and value-based delivery system.

I am confident that if those of us seeking to improve outcomes use visible and accessible data to engender confidence, clearly link practice change to the relevant and urgent issue at hand, promote broadly visible creative problem solving to foster an ecosystem of change, and cultivate empathy and mutual interdependence to promote the teamwork we aspire to have, that we will foster meaningful progress in our efforts to improve care for patients and populations.

Corresponding author: Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, President, Collaborative Healthcare Strategies, Lexington, MA; amy@collaborativehealthcarestrategies.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

While sick at home with a 26-day symptomatic course of COVID-19 in March 2020, I watched the surge unfold in my state and the hospital where I work as an inpatient adult medicine physician. Although the preponderance of my professional life is dedicated to leading teams in implementing delivery system transformation, the hat I wore in that moment involved living through and keeping up with the changes around me. Once I recovered and returned to the arena as a COVID doctor, I adapted to and made changes during constant shifts in how we provided care.

Looking back on those months during the worst of the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, I reflect on the factors that helped me, as a frontline and shift-work clinician, adapt to and make those changes. In reflecting on the elements that were meaningful to me during the crisis, I recognize a set of change-enabling factors that have broad relevance for those of us who work to improve outcomes for patients and populations.

Confidence engendered by liberating data

In the early days of the surge, there was much uncertainty, and unfortunately, some seriously imperfect messaging. Trust was broken or badly bruised for many frontline clinicians. I share this painful phase not to criticize, but rather reflect on what mattered to me during that crisis of confidence. It was data. Raw, unadjusted, best-available data. Produced and pushed out. Available, trended over time, telling the story of where we are, now. Counts of tests, beds, and ventilators. The consistent, transparent availability of relevant and straightforward data provided an active antidote to a sense of uncertainty during a crisis of confidence.

Personal practice change stimulated by relevance and urgency

For half a decade, I have been encouraging interdisciplinary inpatient teams to identify and actively engage the family and/or care partner as a member of the care team. Despite even the American Association of Retired Persons mobilizing an impressive regulatory approach in 32 states to require that family and/or care partners are included as such, the practice change efforts continued on a slow and steady path. Why? We just didn’t believe it was of urgent, relevant, mission-critical importance to our daily practice to do so. That all changed in March 2020.

Without needing to be told, educated, or incentivized, my first night as a COVID doctor found me calling every single patient’s family upon admission, regardless of what time it was. It was critical to review the diagnosis, transparently discuss the uncertainty regarding the upcoming hours and days, review the potential contingencies, and ask, right there and then, whether intubation is consistent with goals of care. It was that urgent and relevant. Without exception, families were grateful for the effort and candor.

The significance of this practice—undoubtedly adopted by every inpatient provider who has worked a COVID surge—is rooted in decades of academic deliberation on which is the “right” doctor to have these discussions. None of that mattered. Historical opinions changed due to what was urgent and relevant given the situation at hand and the job we had to do. Imagine, for example, what we could do and how we could change if we now consider it urgent and relevant to identify and mobilize enhanced services and supports to patients who experience inequities because we believe it to be mission-critical to the job we show up to do every day.

Change fostered by a creative problem-solving ecosystem

Embracing personal practice change was made easier and implicitly affirmed by the creative problem solving that occurred everywhere. Tents, drive-throughs, and even college field houses were now settings of care. Primary care physicians, cardiologists, and gastrointestinal (GI) and postanesthesia care nurses staffed the COVID floors. Rolling stands held iPads so staff could communicate with patients without entering the room. This creative ecosystem fostered individual practice change. No debates were needed to recognize that standard processes were inadequate. No single role or service of any discipline was singularly asked to change to meet the needs of the moment. Because of this ecosystem of creative, active change, there was a much greater flexibility among individuals, role types, departments, and disciplines to change. This is particularly poignant to me in light of the work I lead to improve care for patients who experience systemic inequities in our health care system. When we ask a single role type or discipline to change, it can be met with resistance; far more success is achieved when we engage an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to change. When surrounded by others making change, it makes us more willing to change, too.

 

 

Change catalyzed teamwork

It is so often invoked that health care is a team sport. In practicality, while we may aspire to work as a team, health care delivery is still all too often comprised of a set of individual actors with individualized responsibilities trying to communicate the best they can with each other.

What I experienced during the surge at my hospital was the very best version of teamwork I have ever been a part of in health care: empathetic, mutually interdependent strangers coming together during daily changes in staffing, processes, and resources. I will never forget nights walking into the pediatric floor or day surgery recovery area—now repurposed as a COVID unit—to entirely new faces comprised of GI suite nurses, outpatient doctors, and moonlighting intensivists.

We were all new to each other, all new to working in this setting, and all new to whatever the newest changes of the day brought. I will never forget how we greeted each other and introduced ourselves. We asked each other where we were “from,” and held a genuine appreciation to each other for being there. Imagine how this impacted how we worked together. Looking back on those night shifts, I remember us as a truly interdependent team. I will endeavor to bring that sense of mutual regard and interdependency into my work to foster effective interdisciplinary and cross-continuum teamwork.

Takeaways

As a student and practitioner of delivery system transformation, I am often in conversations about imperfect data, incomplete evidence, and role-specific and organizational resistance to change. As an acute care provider during the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, the experiences I had as a participant in the COVID-related delivery system change will stay with me as I lead value-based delivery system change. What worked in an infectious disease crisis holds great relevance to our pressing, urgent, relevant work to create a more person-centered, equitable, and value-based delivery system.

I am confident that if those of us seeking to improve outcomes use visible and accessible data to engender confidence, clearly link practice change to the relevant and urgent issue at hand, promote broadly visible creative problem solving to foster an ecosystem of change, and cultivate empathy and mutual interdependence to promote the teamwork we aspire to have, that we will foster meaningful progress in our efforts to improve care for patients and populations.

Corresponding author: Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, President, Collaborative Healthcare Strategies, Lexington, MA; amy@collaborativehealthcarestrategies.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate whether a digital intervention comprising self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) with reminders and predetermined drug changes combined with lifestyle change support resulted in lower systolic BP in people receiving treatment for hypertension that was poorly controlled, and whether this approach was cost effective.

Design. Unmasked randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Eligible participants were identified from clinical codes recorded in the electronic health records of 76 collaborating general practices from the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, a United Kingdom government agency. The practices sent invitation letters to eligible participants to come to the clinic to establish eligibility, take consent, and collect baseline data via online questionnaires.

Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with treated hypertension, a mean baseline BP reading of more than 140/90 mm Hg and were taking no more than 3 antihypertensive drugs. Participants also needed to be willing to self-monitor and have access to the internet (with support from a family member if needed). Exclusions included BP greater than 180/110 mm Hg, atrial fibrillation, hypertension not managed by their general practitioner, chronic kidney disease stage 4-5, postural hypotension (> 20 mm Hg systolic drop), an acute cardiovascular event in the previous 3 months, terminal disease, or another condition which in the opinion of their general practitioner made participation inappropriate.

Of the 11 399 invitation letters sent out, 1389 (12%) potential participants responded positively and were screened for eligibility. Those who declined to take part could optionally give their reasons, and responses were gained from 2426 of 10 010 (24%). The mean age of those who gave a reason for declining was 73 years. The most commonly selected reasons for declining were not having access to the internet (982, 41%), not wanting to participate in a research trial (617, 25%) or an internet study (543, 22%), and not wanting to change drugs (535, 22%). Of the 1389 screened, 734 were ineligible, and 33 did not complete baseline measures and randomization. The remaining 622 people who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the HOME BP intervention (n = 305) or usual care (n = 317).

Intervention vs usual care. The HOME BP intervention for the self-management of high BP consisted of an integrated patient and health care practitioner online digital intervention, BP self-monitoring (using an Omron M3 monitor), health care practitioner directed and supervised titration of antihypertensive drugs, and user-selected lifestyle modifications. Participants were advised via automated email reminders to take 2 morning BP readings for 7 days each month and to enter online each second reading. Mean home BP was calculated, accompanied by feedback of BP results to both patients and professionals with optional evidence-based lifestyle advice (for healthy eating, physical activity, losing weight if appropriate, and salt and alcohol reduction) and motivational support through practice nurses or health care assistances (using the CARE approach – congratulate, ask, reassure, encourage).

Participants allocated to usual care were not provided with self-monitoring equipment or the HOME BP intervention but had online access to the information provided in a patient leaflet for hypertension. This information comprised definitions of hypertension, causes, and brief guidance on treatment, including lifestyle changes and drugs. These participants received routine hypertension care that typically consisted of clinic BP monitoring to titrate drugs, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner. Participants were not prevented from self-monitoring, but data on self-monitoring practices were collected at the end of the trial from patients and practitioners.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was the difference in systolic BP at 12-month follow-up between the intervention and usual care groups (adjusting for baseline BP, practice, BP target levels, and sex). Secondary outcomes included systolic and diastolic BP at 6 and 12 months, weight, modified patient enablement instrument, drug adherence, health-related quality of life, and side effects from the symptoms section of an adjusted illness perceptions questionnaire. At trial, registration participants and general practitioners were asked about their use of self-monitoring in the usual care group.

The primary analysis used general linear modelling to compare systolic BP in the intervention and usual care groups at follow-up, adjusting for baseline BP, practice (as a random effect to take into account clustering), BP target levels, and sex. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation for missing data. Sensitivity analyses used complete cases and a repeated measures technique. Secondary analyses used similar techniques to assess differences between groups. A within-trial economic analysis estimated cost per unit reduction in systolic BP by using similar adjustments and multiple imputation for missing values. Repeated bootstrapping was used to estimate the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at different levels of willingness to pay per unit reduction in BP.

Main results. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ significantly – participants had a mean age of 66 years and mean baseline clinical BP of 151.6/85.3 mm Hg and 151.7/86.4 mm Hg (usual care and intervention, respectively). Most participants were White British (94%), just more than half were men, and the time since diagnosis averaged around 11 years. The most deprived group (based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation) accounted for 63/622 (10%), with the least deprived group accounting for 326/622 (52%).

After 1 year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean BP dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic BP of −3.4 mm Hg (95% CI −6.1 to −0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic BP of −0.5 mm Hg (−1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that participants aged 67 years or older had a smaller effect size than those younger than 67. Similarly, while the effect sizes in the standard and diabetes target groups were similar, those older than 80 years with a higher target of 145/85 mm Hg showed little evidence of benefit. Results for other subgroups, including sex, baseline BP, deprivation, and history of self-monitoring, were similar between groups.

Engagement with the digital intervention was high, with 281/305 (92%) participants completing the 2 core training sessions, 268/305 (88%) completing a week of practice BP readings, and 243/305 (80%) completing at least 3 weeks of BP entries. Furthermore, 214/305 (70%) were still monitoring in the last 3 months of participation. However, less than 1/3 of participants chose to register on 1 of the optional lifestyle change modules. In the usual care group, a post-hoc analysis after 12 months showed that 112/234 (47%) patients reported monitoring their own BP at home at least once per month during the trial.

The difference in mean cost per patient was £38 (US $51.30, €41.9; 95% CI £27 to £47), which along with the decrease in systolic BP, gave an incremental cost per mm Hg BP reduction of £11 (£6 to £29). Bootstrapping analysis showed the intervention had high (90%) probability of being cost-effective at willingness to pay above £20 per unit reduction. The probabilities of being cost-effective for the intervention against usual care were 87%, 93%, and 97% at thresholds of £20, £30, and £50, respectively.

Conclusion. The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored BP led to better control of systolic BP after 1 year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded.

Commentary

Elevated BP, also known as hypertension, is the most important, modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality.¹ Clinically significant effects and improvements in mortality can be achieved with relatively small reductions in BP levels. Long-established lifestyle modifications that effectively lower BP include weight loss, reduced sodium intake, increased physical activity, and limited alcohol intake. However, motivating patients to achieve lifestyle modifications is among the most difficult aspects of managing hypertension. Importantly, for individuals taking antihypertensive medication, lifestyle modification is recommended as adjunctive therapy to reduce BP. Given that target blood pressure levels are reached for less than half of adults, novel interventions are needed to improve BP control – in particular, individualized cognitive behavioral interventions are more likely to be effective than standardized, single-component interventions.

Guided self-management for hypertension as part of systematic, planned care offers the potential for improvements in adherence and in turn improved long-term patient outcomes.² Self-management can encompass a wide range of behaviors in addition to medication titration and monitoring of symptoms, such as individuals’ ability to manage physical, psychosocial and lifestyle behaviors related to their condition.³ Digital interventions leveraging apps, software, and/or technologies in particular have the potential to support people in self-management, allow for remote monitoring, and enable personalized and adaptive strategies for chronic disease management.^4-5 An example of a digital intervention in the context of guided self-management for hypertension can be a web-based program delivered by computer or phone that combines health information with decision support to help inform behavior change in patients and remote monitoring of patient status by health professionals. Well-designed digital interventions can effectively change patient health-related behaviors, improve patient knowledge and confidence for self-management of health, and lead to better health outcomes.^6-7

This study adds to the literature as a large, randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a digital intervention in the field of hypertension and with follow-up for a year. The authors highlight that relatively few studies have been performed that combine self-monitoring with a digitally delivered cointervention, and none has shown a major effect in an adequately powered trial over a year. Results from this study showed that HOME BP, a digital intervention enabling self-management of hypertension, including self-monitoring, titration based on self-monitored BP, lifestyle advice, and behavioral support for patients and health care professionals, resulted in a worthwhile reduction of systolic BP. In addition, this reduction was achieved at modest cost based on the within trial cost effectiveness analysis.

There are many important strengths of this study, especially related to the design and analysis strategy, and some limitations. This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with a 1 year follow-up period, although participants were unmasked to the group they were randomized to, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. As the authors state, the study was not only adequately powered to detect a difference in blood pressure, but also over-recruitment ensured such an effect was not missed. Recruiting from a large number of general practices ensured generalizability in terms of health care professionals. Importantly, while study participants mostly identified as predominantly White and tended to be of higher socioeconomic status, this is representative of the aged population in England and Wales. Nevertheless, generalizability of findings from this study is still limited to the demographic characteristics of the study population. Other strengths included inclusion of intention-to-treat analysis, multiple imputation for missing data, sensitivity analysis, as well as economic analysis and cost effectiveness analysis.

Of note, results from the study are only attributable to the digital interventions used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital interventions for managing hypertension. Also, as the authors highlight, the relative importance of the different parts of the digital intervention were unable to be distinguished, although this type of analysis is important in multicomponent interventions to better understand the most effective mechanism impacting change in the primary outcome.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Results of this study demonstrated that among participants being treated with hypertension, those engaged with the HOME BP digital intervention (combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management) had better control of systolic BP after 1 year compared to participants receiving usual care. While these findings have important implications in the management of hypertension in health care systems, its integration into clinical workflow, sustainability, long-term clinical effectiveness, and effectiveness among diverse populations is unclear. However, clinicians can still encourage and support the use of evidence-based digital tools for patient self-monitoring of BP and guided-management of lifestyle modifications to lower BP. Additionally, clinicians can proactively propose incorporating evidence-based digital interventions like HOME BP into routine clinical practice guidelines.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate whether a digital intervention comprising self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) with reminders and predetermined drug changes combined with lifestyle change support resulted in lower systolic BP in people receiving treatment for hypertension that was poorly controlled, and whether this approach was cost effective.

Design. Unmasked randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Eligible participants were identified from clinical codes recorded in the electronic health records of 76 collaborating general practices from the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, a United Kingdom government agency. The practices sent invitation letters to eligible participants to come to the clinic to establish eligibility, take consent, and collect baseline data via online questionnaires.

Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with treated hypertension, a mean baseline BP reading of more than 140/90 mm Hg and were taking no more than 3 antihypertensive drugs. Participants also needed to be willing to self-monitor and have access to the internet (with support from a family member if needed). Exclusions included BP greater than 180/110 mm Hg, atrial fibrillation, hypertension not managed by their general practitioner, chronic kidney disease stage 4-5, postural hypotension (> 20 mm Hg systolic drop), an acute cardiovascular event in the previous 3 months, terminal disease, or another condition which in the opinion of their general practitioner made participation inappropriate.

Of the 11 399 invitation letters sent out, 1389 (12%) potential participants responded positively and were screened for eligibility. Those who declined to take part could optionally give their reasons, and responses were gained from 2426 of 10 010 (24%). The mean age of those who gave a reason for declining was 73 years. The most commonly selected reasons for declining were not having access to the internet (982, 41%), not wanting to participate in a research trial (617, 25%) or an internet study (543, 22%), and not wanting to change drugs (535, 22%). Of the 1389 screened, 734 were ineligible, and 33 did not complete baseline measures and randomization. The remaining 622 people who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the HOME BP intervention (n = 305) or usual care (n = 317).

Intervention vs usual care. The HOME BP intervention for the self-management of high BP consisted of an integrated patient and health care practitioner online digital intervention, BP self-monitoring (using an Omron M3 monitor), health care practitioner directed and supervised titration of antihypertensive drugs, and user-selected lifestyle modifications. Participants were advised via automated email reminders to take 2 morning BP readings for 7 days each month and to enter online each second reading. Mean home BP was calculated, accompanied by feedback of BP results to both patients and professionals with optional evidence-based lifestyle advice (for healthy eating, physical activity, losing weight if appropriate, and salt and alcohol reduction) and motivational support through practice nurses or health care assistances (using the CARE approach – congratulate, ask, reassure, encourage).

Participants allocated to usual care were not provided with self-monitoring equipment or the HOME BP intervention but had online access to the information provided in a patient leaflet for hypertension. This information comprised definitions of hypertension, causes, and brief guidance on treatment, including lifestyle changes and drugs. These participants received routine hypertension care that typically consisted of clinic BP monitoring to titrate drugs, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner. Participants were not prevented from self-monitoring, but data on self-monitoring practices were collected at the end of the trial from patients and practitioners.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was the difference in systolic BP at 12-month follow-up between the intervention and usual care groups (adjusting for baseline BP, practice, BP target levels, and sex). Secondary outcomes included systolic and diastolic BP at 6 and 12 months, weight, modified patient enablement instrument, drug adherence, health-related quality of life, and side effects from the symptoms section of an adjusted illness perceptions questionnaire. At trial, registration participants and general practitioners were asked about their use of self-monitoring in the usual care group.

The primary analysis used general linear modelling to compare systolic BP in the intervention and usual care groups at follow-up, adjusting for baseline BP, practice (as a random effect to take into account clustering), BP target levels, and sex. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation for missing data. Sensitivity analyses used complete cases and a repeated measures technique. Secondary analyses used similar techniques to assess differences between groups. A within-trial economic analysis estimated cost per unit reduction in systolic BP by using similar adjustments and multiple imputation for missing values. Repeated bootstrapping was used to estimate the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at different levels of willingness to pay per unit reduction in BP.

Main results. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ significantly – participants had a mean age of 66 years and mean baseline clinical BP of 151.6/85.3 mm Hg and 151.7/86.4 mm Hg (usual care and intervention, respectively). Most participants were White British (94%), just more than half were men, and the time since diagnosis averaged around 11 years. The most deprived group (based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation) accounted for 63/622 (10%), with the least deprived group accounting for 326/622 (52%).

After 1 year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean BP dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic BP of −3.4 mm Hg (95% CI −6.1 to −0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic BP of −0.5 mm Hg (−1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that participants aged 67 years or older had a smaller effect size than those younger than 67. Similarly, while the effect sizes in the standard and diabetes target groups were similar, those older than 80 years with a higher target of 145/85 mm Hg showed little evidence of benefit. Results for other subgroups, including sex, baseline BP, deprivation, and history of self-monitoring, were similar between groups.

Engagement with the digital intervention was high, with 281/305 (92%) participants completing the 2 core training sessions, 268/305 (88%) completing a week of practice BP readings, and 243/305 (80%) completing at least 3 weeks of BP entries. Furthermore, 214/305 (70%) were still monitoring in the last 3 months of participation. However, less than 1/3 of participants chose to register on 1 of the optional lifestyle change modules. In the usual care group, a post-hoc analysis after 12 months showed that 112/234 (47%) patients reported monitoring their own BP at home at least once per month during the trial.

The difference in mean cost per patient was £38 (US $51.30, €41.9; 95% CI £27 to £47), which along with the decrease in systolic BP, gave an incremental cost per mm Hg BP reduction of £11 (£6 to £29). Bootstrapping analysis showed the intervention had high (90%) probability of being cost-effective at willingness to pay above £20 per unit reduction. The probabilities of being cost-effective for the intervention against usual care were 87%, 93%, and 97% at thresholds of £20, £30, and £50, respectively.

Conclusion. The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored BP led to better control of systolic BP after 1 year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded.

Commentary

Elevated BP, also known as hypertension, is the most important, modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality.¹ Clinically significant effects and improvements in mortality can be achieved with relatively small reductions in BP levels. Long-established lifestyle modifications that effectively lower BP include weight loss, reduced sodium intake, increased physical activity, and limited alcohol intake. However, motivating patients to achieve lifestyle modifications is among the most difficult aspects of managing hypertension. Importantly, for individuals taking antihypertensive medication, lifestyle modification is recommended as adjunctive therapy to reduce BP. Given that target blood pressure levels are reached for less than half of adults, novel interventions are needed to improve BP control – in particular, individualized cognitive behavioral interventions are more likely to be effective than standardized, single-component interventions.

Guided self-management for hypertension as part of systematic, planned care offers the potential for improvements in adherence and in turn improved long-term patient outcomes.² Self-management can encompass a wide range of behaviors in addition to medication titration and monitoring of symptoms, such as individuals’ ability to manage physical, psychosocial and lifestyle behaviors related to their condition.³ Digital interventions leveraging apps, software, and/or technologies in particular have the potential to support people in self-management, allow for remote monitoring, and enable personalized and adaptive strategies for chronic disease management.^4-5 An example of a digital intervention in the context of guided self-management for hypertension can be a web-based program delivered by computer or phone that combines health information with decision support to help inform behavior change in patients and remote monitoring of patient status by health professionals. Well-designed digital interventions can effectively change patient health-related behaviors, improve patient knowledge and confidence for self-management of health, and lead to better health outcomes.^6-7

This study adds to the literature as a large, randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a digital intervention in the field of hypertension and with follow-up for a year. The authors highlight that relatively few studies have been performed that combine self-monitoring with a digitally delivered cointervention, and none has shown a major effect in an adequately powered trial over a year. Results from this study showed that HOME BP, a digital intervention enabling self-management of hypertension, including self-monitoring, titration based on self-monitored BP, lifestyle advice, and behavioral support for patients and health care professionals, resulted in a worthwhile reduction of systolic BP. In addition, this reduction was achieved at modest cost based on the within trial cost effectiveness analysis.

There are many important strengths of this study, especially related to the design and analysis strategy, and some limitations. This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with a 1 year follow-up period, although participants were unmasked to the group they were randomized to, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. As the authors state, the study was not only adequately powered to detect a difference in blood pressure, but also over-recruitment ensured such an effect was not missed. Recruiting from a large number of general practices ensured generalizability in terms of health care professionals. Importantly, while study participants mostly identified as predominantly White and tended to be of higher socioeconomic status, this is representative of the aged population in England and Wales. Nevertheless, generalizability of findings from this study is still limited to the demographic characteristics of the study population. Other strengths included inclusion of intention-to-treat analysis, multiple imputation for missing data, sensitivity analysis, as well as economic analysis and cost effectiveness analysis.

Of note, results from the study are only attributable to the digital interventions used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital interventions for managing hypertension. Also, as the authors highlight, the relative importance of the different parts of the digital intervention were unable to be distinguished, although this type of analysis is important in multicomponent interventions to better understand the most effective mechanism impacting change in the primary outcome.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Results of this study demonstrated that among participants being treated with hypertension, those engaged with the HOME BP digital intervention (combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management) had better control of systolic BP after 1 year compared to participants receiving usual care. While these findings have important implications in the management of hypertension in health care systems, its integration into clinical workflow, sustainability, long-term clinical effectiveness, and effectiveness among diverse populations is unclear. However, clinicians can still encourage and support the use of evidence-based digital tools for patient self-monitoring of BP and guided-management of lifestyle modifications to lower BP. Additionally, clinicians can proactively propose incorporating evidence-based digital interventions like HOME BP into routine clinical practice guidelines.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate whether a digital intervention comprising self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) with reminders and predetermined drug changes combined with lifestyle change support resulted in lower systolic BP in people receiving treatment for hypertension that was poorly controlled, and whether this approach was cost effective.

Design. Unmasked randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Eligible participants were identified from clinical codes recorded in the electronic health records of 76 collaborating general practices from the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, a United Kingdom government agency. The practices sent invitation letters to eligible participants to come to the clinic to establish eligibility, take consent, and collect baseline data via online questionnaires.

Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with treated hypertension, a mean baseline BP reading of more than 140/90 mm Hg and were taking no more than 3 antihypertensive drugs. Participants also needed to be willing to self-monitor and have access to the internet (with support from a family member if needed). Exclusions included BP greater than 180/110 mm Hg, atrial fibrillation, hypertension not managed by their general practitioner, chronic kidney disease stage 4-5, postural hypotension (> 20 mm Hg systolic drop), an acute cardiovascular event in the previous 3 months, terminal disease, or another condition which in the opinion of their general practitioner made participation inappropriate.

Of the 11 399 invitation letters sent out, 1389 (12%) potential participants responded positively and were screened for eligibility. Those who declined to take part could optionally give their reasons, and responses were gained from 2426 of 10 010 (24%). The mean age of those who gave a reason for declining was 73 years. The most commonly selected reasons for declining were not having access to the internet (982, 41%), not wanting to participate in a research trial (617, 25%) or an internet study (543, 22%), and not wanting to change drugs (535, 22%). Of the 1389 screened, 734 were ineligible, and 33 did not complete baseline measures and randomization. The remaining 622 people who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the HOME BP intervention (n = 305) or usual care (n = 317).

Intervention vs usual care. The HOME BP intervention for the self-management of high BP consisted of an integrated patient and health care practitioner online digital intervention, BP self-monitoring (using an Omron M3 monitor), health care practitioner directed and supervised titration of antihypertensive drugs, and user-selected lifestyle modifications. Participants were advised via automated email reminders to take 2 morning BP readings for 7 days each month and to enter online each second reading. Mean home BP was calculated, accompanied by feedback of BP results to both patients and professionals with optional evidence-based lifestyle advice (for healthy eating, physical activity, losing weight if appropriate, and salt and alcohol reduction) and motivational support through practice nurses or health care assistances (using the CARE approach – congratulate, ask, reassure, encourage).

Participants allocated to usual care were not provided with self-monitoring equipment or the HOME BP intervention but had online access to the information provided in a patient leaflet for hypertension. This information comprised definitions of hypertension, causes, and brief guidance on treatment, including lifestyle changes and drugs. These participants received routine hypertension care that typically consisted of clinic BP monitoring to titrate drugs, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner. Participants were not prevented from self-monitoring, but data on self-monitoring practices were collected at the end of the trial from patients and practitioners.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was the difference in systolic BP at 12-month follow-up between the intervention and usual care groups (adjusting for baseline BP, practice, BP target levels, and sex). Secondary outcomes included systolic and diastolic BP at 6 and 12 months, weight, modified patient enablement instrument, drug adherence, health-related quality of life, and side effects from the symptoms section of an adjusted illness perceptions questionnaire. At trial, registration participants and general practitioners were asked about their use of self-monitoring in the usual care group.

The primary analysis used general linear modelling to compare systolic BP in the intervention and usual care groups at follow-up, adjusting for baseline BP, practice (as a random effect to take into account clustering), BP target levels, and sex. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation for missing data. Sensitivity analyses used complete cases and a repeated measures technique. Secondary analyses used similar techniques to assess differences between groups. A within-trial economic analysis estimated cost per unit reduction in systolic BP by using similar adjustments and multiple imputation for missing values. Repeated bootstrapping was used to estimate the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at different levels of willingness to pay per unit reduction in BP.

Main results. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ significantly – participants had a mean age of 66 years and mean baseline clinical BP of 151.6/85.3 mm Hg and 151.7/86.4 mm Hg (usual care and intervention, respectively). Most participants were White British (94%), just more than half were men, and the time since diagnosis averaged around 11 years. The most deprived group (based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation) accounted for 63/622 (10%), with the least deprived group accounting for 326/622 (52%).

After 1 year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean BP dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic BP of −3.4 mm Hg (95% CI −6.1 to −0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic BP of −0.5 mm Hg (−1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that participants aged 67 years or older had a smaller effect size than those younger than 67. Similarly, while the effect sizes in the standard and diabetes target groups were similar, those older than 80 years with a higher target of 145/85 mm Hg showed little evidence of benefit. Results for other subgroups, including sex, baseline BP, deprivation, and history of self-monitoring, were similar between groups.

Engagement with the digital intervention was high, with 281/305 (92%) participants completing the 2 core training sessions, 268/305 (88%) completing a week of practice BP readings, and 243/305 (80%) completing at least 3 weeks of BP entries. Furthermore, 214/305 (70%) were still monitoring in the last 3 months of participation. However, less than 1/3 of participants chose to register on 1 of the optional lifestyle change modules. In the usual care group, a post-hoc analysis after 12 months showed that 112/234 (47%) patients reported monitoring their own BP at home at least once per month during the trial.

The difference in mean cost per patient was £38 (US $51.30, €41.9; 95% CI £27 to £47), which along with the decrease in systolic BP, gave an incremental cost per mm Hg BP reduction of £11 (£6 to £29). Bootstrapping analysis showed the intervention had high (90%) probability of being cost-effective at willingness to pay above £20 per unit reduction. The probabilities of being cost-effective for the intervention against usual care were 87%, 93%, and 97% at thresholds of £20, £30, and £50, respectively.

Conclusion. The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored BP led to better control of systolic BP after 1 year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded.

Commentary

Elevated BP, also known as hypertension, is the most important, modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality.¹ Clinically significant effects and improvements in mortality can be achieved with relatively small reductions in BP levels. Long-established lifestyle modifications that effectively lower BP include weight loss, reduced sodium intake, increased physical activity, and limited alcohol intake. However, motivating patients to achieve lifestyle modifications is among the most difficult aspects of managing hypertension. Importantly, for individuals taking antihypertensive medication, lifestyle modification is recommended as adjunctive therapy to reduce BP. Given that target blood pressure levels are reached for less than half of adults, novel interventions are needed to improve BP control – in particular, individualized cognitive behavioral interventions are more likely to be effective than standardized, single-component interventions.

Guided self-management for hypertension as part of systematic, planned care offers the potential for improvements in adherence and in turn improved long-term patient outcomes.² Self-management can encompass a wide range of behaviors in addition to medication titration and monitoring of symptoms, such as individuals’ ability to manage physical, psychosocial and lifestyle behaviors related to their condition.³ Digital interventions leveraging apps, software, and/or technologies in particular have the potential to support people in self-management, allow for remote monitoring, and enable personalized and adaptive strategies for chronic disease management.^4-5 An example of a digital intervention in the context of guided self-management for hypertension can be a web-based program delivered by computer or phone that combines health information with decision support to help inform behavior change in patients and remote monitoring of patient status by health professionals. Well-designed digital interventions can effectively change patient health-related behaviors, improve patient knowledge and confidence for self-management of health, and lead to better health outcomes.^6-7

This study adds to the literature as a large, randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a digital intervention in the field of hypertension and with follow-up for a year. The authors highlight that relatively few studies have been performed that combine self-monitoring with a digitally delivered cointervention, and none has shown a major effect in an adequately powered trial over a year. Results from this study showed that HOME BP, a digital intervention enabling self-management of hypertension, including self-monitoring, titration based on self-monitored BP, lifestyle advice, and behavioral support for patients and health care professionals, resulted in a worthwhile reduction of systolic BP. In addition, this reduction was achieved at modest cost based on the within trial cost effectiveness analysis.

There are many important strengths of this study, especially related to the design and analysis strategy, and some limitations. This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with a 1 year follow-up period, although participants were unmasked to the group they were randomized to, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. As the authors state, the study was not only adequately powered to detect a difference in blood pressure, but also over-recruitment ensured such an effect was not missed. Recruiting from a large number of general practices ensured generalizability in terms of health care professionals. Importantly, while study participants mostly identified as predominantly White and tended to be of higher socioeconomic status, this is representative of the aged population in England and Wales. Nevertheless, generalizability of findings from this study is still limited to the demographic characteristics of the study population. Other strengths included inclusion of intention-to-treat analysis, multiple imputation for missing data, sensitivity analysis, as well as economic analysis and cost effectiveness analysis.

Of note, results from the study are only attributable to the digital interventions used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital interventions for managing hypertension. Also, as the authors highlight, the relative importance of the different parts of the digital intervention were unable to be distinguished, although this type of analysis is important in multicomponent interventions to better understand the most effective mechanism impacting change in the primary outcome.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Results of this study demonstrated that among participants being treated with hypertension, those engaged with the HOME BP digital intervention (combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management) had better control of systolic BP after 1 year compared to participants receiving usual care. While these findings have important implications in the management of hypertension in health care systems, its integration into clinical workflow, sustainability, long-term clinical effectiveness, and effectiveness among diverse populations is unclear. However, clinicians can still encourage and support the use of evidence-based digital tools for patient self-monitoring of BP and guided-management of lifestyle modifications to lower BP. Additionally, clinicians can proactively propose incorporating evidence-based digital interventions like HOME BP into routine clinical practice guidelines.

Financial disclosures: None.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent inpatient service block, I was seeing patients alongside a resident I had gotten to know well. We were consulted on a patient with metastatic head and neck cancer who had not sought care for over a year.

When the patient presented, his voice was raspy and he could not swallow. He had lost 40 pounds. In addition to his locally advanced disease, his lungs were riddled with metastatic lesions.

When we left the room, the resident and I went to speak to the patient’s primary team, and he began to relay our recommendations.

The first words out of his mouth were, “Well, it’s pretty clear he’s going to die.”

The statement took me aback. I wasn’t alarmed by the accuracy of what he had said. The patient was obviously not doing well, and he ended up dying soon after this visit.

It was more the abrupt manner in which the resident had spoken about death. The brusque phrasing felt atypical coming from the otherwise gentle-hearted trainee. He wasn’t referring to a faceless person. We had just seen the man a few minutes ago and heard his personal struggles. I tried to see if anyone else on the team was caught off guard, but everyone was taking notes or continuing to listen, seemingly undeterred.
 

Oncologists’ ‘locker room talk’

I’ve noticed that “locker room talk” about death happens often. Phrases like “he’s definitely not going to do well” and “his life expectancy is poor” make their way into oncologists’ daily language. Thinking back on my own interactions, I realize I am also guilty of discussing death in this way.

And now, with the COVID pandemic forcing most of our tumor boards to go virtual, I find this locker room talk comes even more readily; phrases like “this patient is going to die” are often passed around flippantly, as if saying so will help ease the tension. During these interactions, my colleagues and I rarely acknowledge the seriousness of what a patient death will do to their family and loved ones – or what losing a patient whom we’ve known for years may do to our own psyche.

This language can even creep into how we speak with patients. We are often taught to offer prognoses coldly, ensuring that patients have a clear sense of how long they have left and to help inform their treatment choices. And yet, this training does not necessarily align with what patients want and need. For instance, in a recent survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patients consistently rated physicians poorly at discussing prognosis, what dying might be like, as well as spirituality and religion.

But at the same time, these matter-of-fact statements about death probably help protect us. Death is a routine, inevitable part of an oncologist’s life, and over time, oncology training and practice hardens us to it. During medical school, I remember that a patient dying would trigger immediate reflection, sadness, and conversation with our peers. Now, unless I know a patient well, I find myself rarely reflecting on the patient behind the facts. This evolution is natural for an oncologist: If you don’t develop a tough skin about death, you may become overwhelmed with the frequency of it.

The COVID pandemic has amped our hardness toward death into overdrive. Whether we are in the intensive care unit or simply viewing death rates during the most recent COVID Delta wave, many of us cope by disassociating a face from a name.
 

Making time for reflection

But taking time to reflect can be therapeutic.

I recently referred a patient with metastatic prostate cancer for a phase 1 trial at an outside institution. He was one of the first patients in my genitourinary malignancies clinic when I started as an attending. The patient had progressed through several lines of therapy and was being referred for an investigational phase 1 therapy. We had discussed hospice referral, and the patient was ready for it if this therapy didn’t work out.

I did not see or hear from the man while he was on the trial. A few months later, however, the principal investigator of the trial called me to let me know the patient had progressed through the agent, suffering from significant urinary obstruction, and he was on hospice. “Unfortunately,” the investigator told me, “he’s not going to live much longer.”

When I checked in with the hospice, the patient had died.

I was surprised again at how matter-of-fact the discussion of death had been. But I was even more surprised by my own reaction. Despite the relationship I had formed with the patient, I did not feel much when I heard he had died. I didn’t have time to process the news in the moment. It was time to move on to the next patient.

It was only later, when I called the patient’s family, that I allowed my emotions to flood in. I told his family how grateful I was to know him, how strong he’d been. The patient’s family and I talked about the human, not his passing. It felt good.
 

Abandoning locker room talk

So how do we change how we talk about death? I don’t think the answer is massive educational programs or passing responsibility for advance care planning onto palliative care specialists. The change needs to be driven by individual oncologists. We can call out discussions of death that make us uncomfortable, gently reminding each other that we’re talking about a human life.

We can learn from our palliative care colleagues; their conversations about death routinely include a patient’s support system and personal stories. Palliative care doctors always refer to the patient by name, which helps humanize the person behind the chart.

We can emphasize a feeling of hope, a sentiment that may also be therapeutic to our patients. Even when a patient is dying, there is always something to be done. We can comfort their family, explaining what brought us to this point and how sorry we are that this is happening. We can provide options for symptom control and help patients manage those symptoms.

And we can allow ourselves to talk about how much a death affects us. We can acknowledge how much it sucks that a patient is going to die, how challenging that will be to his/her family, and how we wish it could have ended differently.

Subtle changes like these will improve our own ability to process and discuss death and will ultimately lead to better relationships with our patients. But it starts with eliminating the “locker room talk” of how we discuss death.
 

Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care (C-TAC). He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for GNS Healthcare, Nanology, and Cancer Study Group, and he has received research grant from Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Administration, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, and MUSC. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine differences in care, specifically hospitalization towards the end of life, among nursing home residents with dementia who were Black compared with those who were White.

Design. Population based cohort study in the US. The study included all decedents with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia (ADRD) who resided in a nursing home from 2014 to 2017. Decedents from nursing homes were identified by death within 1 day of an identified nursing home stay or within 8 days of a hospital transfer from nursing home. Data were obtained from Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) which contains clinical data from all Medicaid or Medicare certified nursing homes, and from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) and Medicare Provider and Analysis and Review (MedPAR) which contains hospitalization events for all Medicare Beneficiaries. These files were linked to identify nursing home residents with ADRD who were hospitalized at the end of life. ADRD diagnosis was identified from the chronic condition list from the MBSF and from MDS diagnosis list.

Setting and participants. The study included 665 033 residents from 14 595 nursing homes who died during the study period. Resident race was categorized as White or Black based on the MBSF. Severe cognitive impairment was identified using the MDS that categorized residents as severe or not using the Brief Interview for Mental Status and the Cognitive Performance Scale. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 86.7 (9.2) years for White residents and 82.6 (11.1) years for Black residents. Of the participants, 68.8% and 61.2% were female for Black and White residents, respectively. Approximately 23.4% of White and 32.5% of Black residents had severe cognitive impairment. For nursing home characteristics, 71.5% of the 14 595 nursing homes represented were for profit; average bedside was 109.5 (57.0) and occupancy rate was on average 81.2% (14.3%).

Main outcome measures. The study outcome measure was any hospitalization within 30 days prior to death. The outcome was selected as an indicator of quality of care because as older adults living with ADRD experience progressive worsening of cognitive symptoms, at the end of life when dementia is severe, advance care planning and communication with health care proxies and surrogates often result in coordinated care that avoids acute hospitalizations, which are often burdensome to both patient and family and may yield poorer quality of life.

Main results. The study found that approximately 29.5% of White decedents and 40.7% of Black decedents were hospitalized towards the end of life. Nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to have residents hospitalized towards the end of life with 35% of residents hospitalized in the highest quartile (27% Black) compared with 17% hospitalized for nursing homes in the lowest quartile (0% Black).After adjusting for covariates, Black residents were 7.9% more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life compared with White residents. Blacks with severe cognitive impairment has elevated risk of hospitalization by 4.9% when compared with White residents. After accounting for nursing home facility–level characteristics, nursing homes with a low proportion of Black residents had a 5.2% higher risk of hospitalizations compared with nursing homes with no Black residents, and nursing homes with a higher percentage of Black residents had a 13.3% higher risk of hospitalization compared with nursing homes with no Black residents.

Conclusion. Race is associated with care disparities in older nursing home residents with dementia. This study suggests that hospitalization towards the end of life as a quality of care marker differs across nursing homes, and nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to be hospitalized. This suggests that these nursing homes may have fewer resources and delivered poorer quality of care, and that disparities in health systems or institutions contribute to differences in quality of care for this vulnerable group.

Commentary

Disparities of health status, health care, and affordability across race and ethnicity have persisted throughout the past 20 years.¹ There is further evidence to support systemic differences that can contribute to differences in health outcomes.² Although changes in health care policy such as the Affordable Care Act have expanded health care coverage, and instituted changes that aims to improve health care quality and reduce disparities, it is clear that factors contributing to disparities in care are structural and perhaps systemic. The latest evidence comes in this study that examines racial disparities in health care quality in one of the most vulnerable populations—older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. The finding that Black nursing home residents, when compared with White residents, often has higher risk of hospitalization at the end of life, even among those with severe dementia where better coordinated care, clear goals of care and perhaps instituting palliative care would result in lower rate of hospitalization. The disparities were observed across nursing homes as well, where nursing homes with higher proportion of Black residents appear to have lower quality of care.

These findings are consistent with prior work that has examined differences in Black and White population on uptake of palliative care, discussion, and the documentation of advance care planning.³ Factors that may contribute to these differences include mistrust of the health care system among minorities, and not being connected to adequate health care resources. Family members and surrogate health care decision makers may consider receiving more aggressive care as advocating for better health care for their family members.⁴ These differences may contribute to the differences in hospitalization rates among residents within the same nursing home; however, the differences between nursing homes even after accounting for individual differences may indicate more widespread systemic differences that is associated with race. Policy changes that will address these differences are needed to level these differences so that quality care can be delivered regardless of race.⁵ For this vulnerable population with a terminal illness, approaches to enhance uptake of palliative approaches and care delivery for dementia patients at terminal stage are needed and understanding and targeting factors that contribute to low uptake of these approaches will enhance end of life care. Understanding the differences in resources and systems of care in nursing homes and perhaps how palliative care is integrated in these settings will be important to address care disparities that occurs across nursing homes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Clinicians who take care of this population of older adults with advanced dementia should be aware of the potential for racial disparities that may lead to differences in the quality of care. The underlying reasons for these differences could be targeted so that older adults in all racial groups may have equal access to quality care including palliative approaches that avoid aggressive care for terminal illnesses across settings that may yield better care and quality of life. Policy makers and health systems leaders need to consider the current realities with racial disparities that policies need to address these differences so that they may not continue to persist in our systems of care.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine differences in care, specifically hospitalization towards the end of life, among nursing home residents with dementia who were Black compared with those who were White.

Design. Population based cohort study in the US. The study included all decedents with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia (ADRD) who resided in a nursing home from 2014 to 2017. Decedents from nursing homes were identified by death within 1 day of an identified nursing home stay or within 8 days of a hospital transfer from nursing home. Data were obtained from Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) which contains clinical data from all Medicaid or Medicare certified nursing homes, and from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) and Medicare Provider and Analysis and Review (MedPAR) which contains hospitalization events for all Medicare Beneficiaries. These files were linked to identify nursing home residents with ADRD who were hospitalized at the end of life. ADRD diagnosis was identified from the chronic condition list from the MBSF and from MDS diagnosis list.

Setting and participants. The study included 665 033 residents from 14 595 nursing homes who died during the study period. Resident race was categorized as White or Black based on the MBSF. Severe cognitive impairment was identified using the MDS that categorized residents as severe or not using the Brief Interview for Mental Status and the Cognitive Performance Scale. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 86.7 (9.2) years for White residents and 82.6 (11.1) years for Black residents. Of the participants, 68.8% and 61.2% were female for Black and White residents, respectively. Approximately 23.4% of White and 32.5% of Black residents had severe cognitive impairment. For nursing home characteristics, 71.5% of the 14 595 nursing homes represented were for profit; average bedside was 109.5 (57.0) and occupancy rate was on average 81.2% (14.3%).

Main outcome measures. The study outcome measure was any hospitalization within 30 days prior to death. The outcome was selected as an indicator of quality of care because as older adults living with ADRD experience progressive worsening of cognitive symptoms, at the end of life when dementia is severe, advance care planning and communication with health care proxies and surrogates often result in coordinated care that avoids acute hospitalizations, which are often burdensome to both patient and family and may yield poorer quality of life.

Main results. The study found that approximately 29.5% of White decedents and 40.7% of Black decedents were hospitalized towards the end of life. Nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to have residents hospitalized towards the end of life with 35% of residents hospitalized in the highest quartile (27% Black) compared with 17% hospitalized for nursing homes in the lowest quartile (0% Black).After adjusting for covariates, Black residents were 7.9% more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life compared with White residents. Blacks with severe cognitive impairment has elevated risk of hospitalization by 4.9% when compared with White residents. After accounting for nursing home facility–level characteristics, nursing homes with a low proportion of Black residents had a 5.2% higher risk of hospitalizations compared with nursing homes with no Black residents, and nursing homes with a higher percentage of Black residents had a 13.3% higher risk of hospitalization compared with nursing homes with no Black residents.

Conclusion. Race is associated with care disparities in older nursing home residents with dementia. This study suggests that hospitalization towards the end of life as a quality of care marker differs across nursing homes, and nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to be hospitalized. This suggests that these nursing homes may have fewer resources and delivered poorer quality of care, and that disparities in health systems or institutions contribute to differences in quality of care for this vulnerable group.

Commentary

Disparities of health status, health care, and affordability across race and ethnicity have persisted throughout the past 20 years.¹ There is further evidence to support systemic differences that can contribute to differences in health outcomes.² Although changes in health care policy such as the Affordable Care Act have expanded health care coverage, and instituted changes that aims to improve health care quality and reduce disparities, it is clear that factors contributing to disparities in care are structural and perhaps systemic. The latest evidence comes in this study that examines racial disparities in health care quality in one of the most vulnerable populations—older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. The finding that Black nursing home residents, when compared with White residents, often has higher risk of hospitalization at the end of life, even among those with severe dementia where better coordinated care, clear goals of care and perhaps instituting palliative care would result in lower rate of hospitalization. The disparities were observed across nursing homes as well, where nursing homes with higher proportion of Black residents appear to have lower quality of care.

These findings are consistent with prior work that has examined differences in Black and White population on uptake of palliative care, discussion, and the documentation of advance care planning.³ Factors that may contribute to these differences include mistrust of the health care system among minorities, and not being connected to adequate health care resources. Family members and surrogate health care decision makers may consider receiving more aggressive care as advocating for better health care for their family members.⁴ These differences may contribute to the differences in hospitalization rates among residents within the same nursing home; however, the differences between nursing homes even after accounting for individual differences may indicate more widespread systemic differences that is associated with race. Policy changes that will address these differences are needed to level these differences so that quality care can be delivered regardless of race.⁵ For this vulnerable population with a terminal illness, approaches to enhance uptake of palliative approaches and care delivery for dementia patients at terminal stage are needed and understanding and targeting factors that contribute to low uptake of these approaches will enhance end of life care. Understanding the differences in resources and systems of care in nursing homes and perhaps how palliative care is integrated in these settings will be important to address care disparities that occurs across nursing homes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Clinicians who take care of this population of older adults with advanced dementia should be aware of the potential for racial disparities that may lead to differences in the quality of care. The underlying reasons for these differences could be targeted so that older adults in all racial groups may have equal access to quality care including palliative approaches that avoid aggressive care for terminal illnesses across settings that may yield better care and quality of life. Policy makers and health systems leaders need to consider the current realities with racial disparities that policies need to address these differences so that they may not continue to persist in our systems of care.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To examine differences in care, specifically hospitalization towards the end of life, among nursing home residents with dementia who were Black compared with those who were White.

Design. Population based cohort study in the US. The study included all decedents with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementia (ADRD) who resided in a nursing home from 2014 to 2017. Decedents from nursing homes were identified by death within 1 day of an identified nursing home stay or within 8 days of a hospital transfer from nursing home. Data were obtained from Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) which contains clinical data from all Medicaid or Medicare certified nursing homes, and from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) and Medicare Provider and Analysis and Review (MedPAR) which contains hospitalization events for all Medicare Beneficiaries. These files were linked to identify nursing home residents with ADRD who were hospitalized at the end of life. ADRD diagnosis was identified from the chronic condition list from the MBSF and from MDS diagnosis list.

Setting and participants. The study included 665 033 residents from 14 595 nursing homes who died during the study period. Resident race was categorized as White or Black based on the MBSF. Severe cognitive impairment was identified using the MDS that categorized residents as severe or not using the Brief Interview for Mental Status and the Cognitive Performance Scale. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 86.7 (9.2) years for White residents and 82.6 (11.1) years for Black residents. Of the participants, 68.8% and 61.2% were female for Black and White residents, respectively. Approximately 23.4% of White and 32.5% of Black residents had severe cognitive impairment. For nursing home characteristics, 71.5% of the 14 595 nursing homes represented were for profit; average bedside was 109.5 (57.0) and occupancy rate was on average 81.2% (14.3%).

Main outcome measures. The study outcome measure was any hospitalization within 30 days prior to death. The outcome was selected as an indicator of quality of care because as older adults living with ADRD experience progressive worsening of cognitive symptoms, at the end of life when dementia is severe, advance care planning and communication with health care proxies and surrogates often result in coordinated care that avoids acute hospitalizations, which are often burdensome to both patient and family and may yield poorer quality of life.

Main results. The study found that approximately 29.5% of White decedents and 40.7% of Black decedents were hospitalized towards the end of life. Nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to have residents hospitalized towards the end of life with 35% of residents hospitalized in the highest quartile (27% Black) compared with 17% hospitalized for nursing homes in the lowest quartile (0% Black).After adjusting for covariates, Black residents were 7.9% more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life compared with White residents. Blacks with severe cognitive impairment has elevated risk of hospitalization by 4.9% when compared with White residents. After accounting for nursing home facility–level characteristics, nursing homes with a low proportion of Black residents had a 5.2% higher risk of hospitalizations compared with nursing homes with no Black residents, and nursing homes with a higher percentage of Black residents had a 13.3% higher risk of hospitalization compared with nursing homes with no Black residents.

Conclusion. Race is associated with care disparities in older nursing home residents with dementia. This study suggests that hospitalization towards the end of life as a quality of care marker differs across nursing homes, and nursing homes with a higher proportion of Black residents were more likely to be hospitalized. This suggests that these nursing homes may have fewer resources and delivered poorer quality of care, and that disparities in health systems or institutions contribute to differences in quality of care for this vulnerable group.

Commentary

Disparities of health status, health care, and affordability across race and ethnicity have persisted throughout the past 20 years.¹ There is further evidence to support systemic differences that can contribute to differences in health outcomes.² Although changes in health care policy such as the Affordable Care Act have expanded health care coverage, and instituted changes that aims to improve health care quality and reduce disparities, it is clear that factors contributing to disparities in care are structural and perhaps systemic. The latest evidence comes in this study that examines racial disparities in health care quality in one of the most vulnerable populations—older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. The finding that Black nursing home residents, when compared with White residents, often has higher risk of hospitalization at the end of life, even among those with severe dementia where better coordinated care, clear goals of care and perhaps instituting palliative care would result in lower rate of hospitalization. The disparities were observed across nursing homes as well, where nursing homes with higher proportion of Black residents appear to have lower quality of care.

These findings are consistent with prior work that has examined differences in Black and White population on uptake of palliative care, discussion, and the documentation of advance care planning.³ Factors that may contribute to these differences include mistrust of the health care system among minorities, and not being connected to adequate health care resources. Family members and surrogate health care decision makers may consider receiving more aggressive care as advocating for better health care for their family members.⁴ These differences may contribute to the differences in hospitalization rates among residents within the same nursing home; however, the differences between nursing homes even after accounting for individual differences may indicate more widespread systemic differences that is associated with race. Policy changes that will address these differences are needed to level these differences so that quality care can be delivered regardless of race.⁵ For this vulnerable population with a terminal illness, approaches to enhance uptake of palliative approaches and care delivery for dementia patients at terminal stage are needed and understanding and targeting factors that contribute to low uptake of these approaches will enhance end of life care. Understanding the differences in resources and systems of care in nursing homes and perhaps how palliative care is integrated in these settings will be important to address care disparities that occurs across nursing homes.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Clinicians who take care of this population of older adults with advanced dementia should be aware of the potential for racial disparities that may lead to differences in the quality of care. The underlying reasons for these differences could be targeted so that older adults in all racial groups may have equal access to quality care including palliative approaches that avoid aggressive care for terminal illnesses across settings that may yield better care and quality of life. Policy makers and health systems leaders need to consider the current realities with racial disparities that policies need to address these differences so that they may not continue to persist in our systems of care.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the frequency of preoperative advance care planning (ACP) discussion and documentation for older adults undergoing major surgery in a national sample, and (2) characterize how surgical patients and their family members considered ACP after postoperative complications.

Design. A secondary analysis of data from a multisite randomized clinical trial testing the effects of a question prompt list intervention (a Question Problem List [QPL] brochure with 11 questions) given to patients aged 60 years or older undergoing high-risk surgery on preoperative communication with their surgeons.

Setting and participants. This multisite randomized controlled trial involved 5 study sites that encompassed distinct US geographic areas, including University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics (UWHC), Madison; the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center (UCSF); Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland; the University Hospital of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers), Newark; and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, Massachusetts. The study enrolled 40 surgeons who routinely performed high-risk oncological or vascular surgery via purposeful sampling; patients aged 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity and an oncological or vascular problem that were treatable with high-risk surgery; and 1 invited family member per enrolled patient to participate in open-ended interviews postsurgery. High-risk surgery was defined as an operation that has a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate greater than or equal to 1%. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018.

Main outcome measures. The frequency of preoperative discussions and documentation of ACP was determined. For patients who had major surgery, any mention of ACP (ie, mention of advance directive [AD], health care power of attorney, or preference for limitations of life-sustaining treatments) by the surgeon, patient or family member during the audio recorded, transcribed, and coded preoperative consultation was counted. The presence of a written AD in the medical record at the time of the initial consultation, filed between the consultation and the date of surgery, or added postoperatively, was recorded using a standardized abstraction form. Postoperative treatments administered and complications experienced within 6 weeks after surgery were recorded. Open-ended interviews with patients who experienced significant postoperative complications (eg, prolonged hospitalization > 8 days, intensive care unit stay > 3 days) and their family members were conducted 6 weeks after surgery. Information ascertained during interviews focused on treatment decisions, postoperative experiences, and interpersonal relationships among patients, families, and clinicians. Transcripts of these interviews were then subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Main results. A total of 446 patients were enrolled in the primary study. Of these patients, 213 (122 men [57%]; 91 women [43%]; mean [SD] age, 72 [7] years) underwent major surgery. Only 13 (6.1%) of those who had major surgery had any discussion related to ACP in the preoperative consultation. In this cohort, 141 (66%) patients did not have an AD on file before undergoing major surgery. The presence of AD was not associated with age (60-69 years, 26 [31%]; 70-79 years, 31 [33%]; ≥ 80 years, 15 [42%]; P = .55), number of comorbidities (1, 35 [32%]; 2, 18 [33%]; ≥ 3, 19 [40%]; P = .62), or type of procedure (oncological, 53 [32%]; vascular, 19 [42%]; P = .22). Moreover, there was no difference in preoperative communication about ACP or documentation of an AD for patients who were mailed a QPL brochure compared to those who received usual care (intervention, 38 [35%]; usual care, 34 [33%]; P = .77). Rates of AD documentation were associated with individual study sites with BWH and UWHC having higher rates of documentation (20 [50%] and 27 [44%], respectively) compared to OHSU, UCSF, or Rutgers (7 [17%], 17 [35%], and 1 [5%], respectively). Analysis from the interviews indicated that patients and families felt unprepared for serious surgical complications and had varied interpretations of ACP. Patients with complications were enthusiastic about ACP but did not think it was important to discuss their preferences for life-sustaining treatments with their surgeon preoperatively.

Conclusion. Although surgeons and patients report that they believe ACP is important, preoperative discussion of patient preferences rarely occurs. This study found that the frequency of ACP discussions or AD documentations among older patients undergoing high-risk oncologic or vascular surgery was low. Interventions that are aimed to increase rates of preoperative ACP discussions should be implemented to help prepare patients and their families for difficult decisions in the setting of serious surgical complications and could help decrease postoperative conflicts that result from unclear patient care goals.

Commentary

Surgeons and patients approach surgical interventions with optimistic outlooks while simultaneously preparing for unintended adverse outcomes. For patients, preoperative ACP discussions ease the burden on their families and ensure their wishes and care goals are communicated. For surgeons, these discussions inform them how best to support the values of the patient. Therefore, it is unsurprising that preoperative ACP is viewed favorably by both groups. Given the consensus that ACP is important in the care of older adults undergoing high-risk surgery, one would assume that preoperative ACP discussion is a standard of practice among surgeons and their aging patients. However, in a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial testing a patient-mediated intervention to improve preoperative communication, Kalbfell et al¹ showed that ACP discussions rarely take place prior to major surgery in older adults. This finding highlights the significant discrepancy between the belief that ACP is important, and the actual rate that it is practiced, in older patients undergoing high-risk surgery. This discordance is highly concerning because it suggests that surgeons who provide care to a very vulnerable subset of older patients may overlook an essential aspect of preoperative care and therefore lack a thorough and thoughtful understanding of the patient’s care goals. In practice, this omission can pose significant challenges associated with the surgeon and family’s decisions to use postoperative life-sustaining interventions or to manage unforeseen complications should a patient become unable to make medical decisions.

The barriers to conducting successful ACP discussions between surgeons and patients are multifactorial. Kalbfell et al¹ highlighted several of these barriers, including lack of patient efficacy, physician attitudes, and institutional values in older adults who require major surgeries. The inadequacy of patient efficacy in preoperative ACP is illustrated by findings from the primary, multisite trial of QPL intervention conducted by Schwarze et al. Interestingly, the authors found that patients who did not receive QPL brochure had no ACP discussions, and that QPL implementation did not significantly improve discussion rates despite its intent to encourage these discussions.² Possible explanations for this lack of engagement might be a lack of health literacy or patient efficacy in the study population. Qualitative data from the current study provided further evidence to support these explanations. For instance, some patients provided limited or incomplete information about their wishes for health care management while others felt it was unnecessary to have ACP discussions unless complications arose.¹ However, the latter example counters the purpose of ACP which is to enable patients to make plans about future health care and not reactive to a medical complication or emergency.

Surgeons bear a large responsibility in providing treatments that are consistent with the care goals of the patient. Thus, surgeons play a crucial role in engaging, guiding, and facilitating ACP discussions with patients. This role is even more critical when patients are unable or unwilling to initiate care goal discussions. Physician attitudes towards ACP, therefore, greatly influence the effectiveness of these discussions. In a study of self-administered surveys by vascular, neurologic, and cardiothoracic surgeons, greater than 90% of respondents viewed postoperative life-supporting therapy as necessary, and 54% would decline to operate on patients with an AD limiting life-supporting therapy.³ Moreover, the same study showed that 52% of respondents reported discussing AD before surgery, a figure that exceeded the actual rates at which ACP discussions occur in many other studies. In the current study, Kalbfell et al¹ also found that surgeons viewed ACP discussions largely in the context of AD creation and declined to investigate the full scope of patient preferences. These findings, when combined with other studies that indicate an incomplete understanding of ACP in some surgeons, suggest that not all physicians are able or willing to navigate these sometimes lengthy and difficult conversations with patients. This gap in practice provides opportunities for training in surgical specialties that center on optimizing preoperative ACP discussions to meet the care needs of older patients.

Institutional value and culture are important factors that impact physician behavior and the practice of ACP discussion. In the current study, the authors reported that the majority of ACP discussions were held by a minority of surgeons and that different institutions and study sites had vastly different rates of ACP documentation.¹ These results are further supported by findings of large variations between physicians and hospitals in ACP reporting in hospitalized frail older adults.⁴ These variations in practices at different institutions suggest that it is possible to improve rates of preoperative ACP discussion. Reasons for these differences need to be further investigated in order to identify strategies, resources, or trainings required by medical institutions to support surgeons to carry out ACP discussions with patients undergoing high-risk surgeries.

The study conducted by Kalbfell et al¹ has several strengths. For example, it included Spanish-speaking patients and the use of a Spanish version of the QPL intervention to account for cultural differences. The study also included multiple surgical specialties and institutions and captured a large and national sample, thus making its findings more generalizable. However, the lack of data on the duration of preoperative consultation visits in patients who completed ACP discussions poses a limitation to this study. This is relevant because surgeon availability to engage in lengthy ACP discussions may be limited due to busy clinical schedules. Additional data on the duration of preoperative visits inclusive of a thoughtfully conducted ACP discussion could help to modify clinical workflow to facilitate its uptake in surgical practices.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings from the current study indicate that patients and surgeons agree that preoperative ACP discussions are beneficial to the clinical care of older adults before high-risk surgeries. However, these important conversations do not occur frequently. Surgeons and health care institutions need to identify strategies to initiate, facilitate, and optimize productive preoperative ACP discussions to provide patient-centered care in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the frequency of preoperative advance care planning (ACP) discussion and documentation for older adults undergoing major surgery in a national sample, and (2) characterize how surgical patients and their family members considered ACP after postoperative complications.

Design. A secondary analysis of data from a multisite randomized clinical trial testing the effects of a question prompt list intervention (a Question Problem List [QPL] brochure with 11 questions) given to patients aged 60 years or older undergoing high-risk surgery on preoperative communication with their surgeons.

Setting and participants. This multisite randomized controlled trial involved 5 study sites that encompassed distinct US geographic areas, including University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics (UWHC), Madison; the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center (UCSF); Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland; the University Hospital of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers), Newark; and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, Massachusetts. The study enrolled 40 surgeons who routinely performed high-risk oncological or vascular surgery via purposeful sampling; patients aged 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity and an oncological or vascular problem that were treatable with high-risk surgery; and 1 invited family member per enrolled patient to participate in open-ended interviews postsurgery. High-risk surgery was defined as an operation that has a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate greater than or equal to 1%. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018.

Main outcome measures. The frequency of preoperative discussions and documentation of ACP was determined. For patients who had major surgery, any mention of ACP (ie, mention of advance directive [AD], health care power of attorney, or preference for limitations of life-sustaining treatments) by the surgeon, patient or family member during the audio recorded, transcribed, and coded preoperative consultation was counted. The presence of a written AD in the medical record at the time of the initial consultation, filed between the consultation and the date of surgery, or added postoperatively, was recorded using a standardized abstraction form. Postoperative treatments administered and complications experienced within 6 weeks after surgery were recorded. Open-ended interviews with patients who experienced significant postoperative complications (eg, prolonged hospitalization > 8 days, intensive care unit stay > 3 days) and their family members were conducted 6 weeks after surgery. Information ascertained during interviews focused on treatment decisions, postoperative experiences, and interpersonal relationships among patients, families, and clinicians. Transcripts of these interviews were then subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Main results. A total of 446 patients were enrolled in the primary study. Of these patients, 213 (122 men [57%]; 91 women [43%]; mean [SD] age, 72 [7] years) underwent major surgery. Only 13 (6.1%) of those who had major surgery had any discussion related to ACP in the preoperative consultation. In this cohort, 141 (66%) patients did not have an AD on file before undergoing major surgery. The presence of AD was not associated with age (60-69 years, 26 [31%]; 70-79 years, 31 [33%]; ≥ 80 years, 15 [42%]; P = .55), number of comorbidities (1, 35 [32%]; 2, 18 [33%]; ≥ 3, 19 [40%]; P = .62), or type of procedure (oncological, 53 [32%]; vascular, 19 [42%]; P = .22). Moreover, there was no difference in preoperative communication about ACP or documentation of an AD for patients who were mailed a QPL brochure compared to those who received usual care (intervention, 38 [35%]; usual care, 34 [33%]; P = .77). Rates of AD documentation were associated with individual study sites with BWH and UWHC having higher rates of documentation (20 [50%] and 27 [44%], respectively) compared to OHSU, UCSF, or Rutgers (7 [17%], 17 [35%], and 1 [5%], respectively). Analysis from the interviews indicated that patients and families felt unprepared for serious surgical complications and had varied interpretations of ACP. Patients with complications were enthusiastic about ACP but did not think it was important to discuss their preferences for life-sustaining treatments with their surgeon preoperatively.

Conclusion. Although surgeons and patients report that they believe ACP is important, preoperative discussion of patient preferences rarely occurs. This study found that the frequency of ACP discussions or AD documentations among older patients undergoing high-risk oncologic or vascular surgery was low. Interventions that are aimed to increase rates of preoperative ACP discussions should be implemented to help prepare patients and their families for difficult decisions in the setting of serious surgical complications and could help decrease postoperative conflicts that result from unclear patient care goals.

Commentary

Surgeons and patients approach surgical interventions with optimistic outlooks while simultaneously preparing for unintended adverse outcomes. For patients, preoperative ACP discussions ease the burden on their families and ensure their wishes and care goals are communicated. For surgeons, these discussions inform them how best to support the values of the patient. Therefore, it is unsurprising that preoperative ACP is viewed favorably by both groups. Given the consensus that ACP is important in the care of older adults undergoing high-risk surgery, one would assume that preoperative ACP discussion is a standard of practice among surgeons and their aging patients. However, in a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial testing a patient-mediated intervention to improve preoperative communication, Kalbfell et al¹ showed that ACP discussions rarely take place prior to major surgery in older adults. This finding highlights the significant discrepancy between the belief that ACP is important, and the actual rate that it is practiced, in older patients undergoing high-risk surgery. This discordance is highly concerning because it suggests that surgeons who provide care to a very vulnerable subset of older patients may overlook an essential aspect of preoperative care and therefore lack a thorough and thoughtful understanding of the patient’s care goals. In practice, this omission can pose significant challenges associated with the surgeon and family’s decisions to use postoperative life-sustaining interventions or to manage unforeseen complications should a patient become unable to make medical decisions.

The barriers to conducting successful ACP discussions between surgeons and patients are multifactorial. Kalbfell et al¹ highlighted several of these barriers, including lack of patient efficacy, physician attitudes, and institutional values in older adults who require major surgeries. The inadequacy of patient efficacy in preoperative ACP is illustrated by findings from the primary, multisite trial of QPL intervention conducted by Schwarze et al. Interestingly, the authors found that patients who did not receive QPL brochure had no ACP discussions, and that QPL implementation did not significantly improve discussion rates despite its intent to encourage these discussions.² Possible explanations for this lack of engagement might be a lack of health literacy or patient efficacy in the study population. Qualitative data from the current study provided further evidence to support these explanations. For instance, some patients provided limited or incomplete information about their wishes for health care management while others felt it was unnecessary to have ACP discussions unless complications arose.¹ However, the latter example counters the purpose of ACP which is to enable patients to make plans about future health care and not reactive to a medical complication or emergency.

Surgeons bear a large responsibility in providing treatments that are consistent with the care goals of the patient. Thus, surgeons play a crucial role in engaging, guiding, and facilitating ACP discussions with patients. This role is even more critical when patients are unable or unwilling to initiate care goal discussions. Physician attitudes towards ACP, therefore, greatly influence the effectiveness of these discussions. In a study of self-administered surveys by vascular, neurologic, and cardiothoracic surgeons, greater than 90% of respondents viewed postoperative life-supporting therapy as necessary, and 54% would decline to operate on patients with an AD limiting life-supporting therapy.³ Moreover, the same study showed that 52% of respondents reported discussing AD before surgery, a figure that exceeded the actual rates at which ACP discussions occur in many other studies. In the current study, Kalbfell et al¹ also found that surgeons viewed ACP discussions largely in the context of AD creation and declined to investigate the full scope of patient preferences. These findings, when combined with other studies that indicate an incomplete understanding of ACP in some surgeons, suggest that not all physicians are able or willing to navigate these sometimes lengthy and difficult conversations with patients. This gap in practice provides opportunities for training in surgical specialties that center on optimizing preoperative ACP discussions to meet the care needs of older patients.

Institutional value and culture are important factors that impact physician behavior and the practice of ACP discussion. In the current study, the authors reported that the majority of ACP discussions were held by a minority of surgeons and that different institutions and study sites had vastly different rates of ACP documentation.¹ These results are further supported by findings of large variations between physicians and hospitals in ACP reporting in hospitalized frail older adults.⁴ These variations in practices at different institutions suggest that it is possible to improve rates of preoperative ACP discussion. Reasons for these differences need to be further investigated in order to identify strategies, resources, or trainings required by medical institutions to support surgeons to carry out ACP discussions with patients undergoing high-risk surgeries.

The study conducted by Kalbfell et al¹ has several strengths. For example, it included Spanish-speaking patients and the use of a Spanish version of the QPL intervention to account for cultural differences. The study also included multiple surgical specialties and institutions and captured a large and national sample, thus making its findings more generalizable. However, the lack of data on the duration of preoperative consultation visits in patients who completed ACP discussions poses a limitation to this study. This is relevant because surgeon availability to engage in lengthy ACP discussions may be limited due to busy clinical schedules. Additional data on the duration of preoperative visits inclusive of a thoughtfully conducted ACP discussion could help to modify clinical workflow to facilitate its uptake in surgical practices.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings from the current study indicate that patients and surgeons agree that preoperative ACP discussions are beneficial to the clinical care of older adults before high-risk surgeries. However, these important conversations do not occur frequently. Surgeons and health care institutions need to identify strategies to initiate, facilitate, and optimize productive preoperative ACP discussions to provide patient-centered care in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the frequency of preoperative advance care planning (ACP) discussion and documentation for older adults undergoing major surgery in a national sample, and (2) characterize how surgical patients and their family members considered ACP after postoperative complications.

Design. A secondary analysis of data from a multisite randomized clinical trial testing the effects of a question prompt list intervention (a Question Problem List [QPL] brochure with 11 questions) given to patients aged 60 years or older undergoing high-risk surgery on preoperative communication with their surgeons.

Setting and participants. This multisite randomized controlled trial involved 5 study sites that encompassed distinct US geographic areas, including University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics (UWHC), Madison; the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center (UCSF); Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland; the University Hospital of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers), Newark; and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, Massachusetts. The study enrolled 40 surgeons who routinely performed high-risk oncological or vascular surgery via purposeful sampling; patients aged 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity and an oncological or vascular problem that were treatable with high-risk surgery; and 1 invited family member per enrolled patient to participate in open-ended interviews postsurgery. High-risk surgery was defined as an operation that has a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate greater than or equal to 1%. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018.

Main outcome measures. The frequency of preoperative discussions and documentation of ACP was determined. For patients who had major surgery, any mention of ACP (ie, mention of advance directive [AD], health care power of attorney, or preference for limitations of life-sustaining treatments) by the surgeon, patient or family member during the audio recorded, transcribed, and coded preoperative consultation was counted. The presence of a written AD in the medical record at the time of the initial consultation, filed between the consultation and the date of surgery, or added postoperatively, was recorded using a standardized abstraction form. Postoperative treatments administered and complications experienced within 6 weeks after surgery were recorded. Open-ended interviews with patients who experienced significant postoperative complications (eg, prolonged hospitalization > 8 days, intensive care unit stay > 3 days) and their family members were conducted 6 weeks after surgery. Information ascertained during interviews focused on treatment decisions, postoperative experiences, and interpersonal relationships among patients, families, and clinicians. Transcripts of these interviews were then subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Main results. A total of 446 patients were enrolled in the primary study. Of these patients, 213 (122 men [57%]; 91 women [43%]; mean [SD] age, 72 [7] years) underwent major surgery. Only 13 (6.1%) of those who had major surgery had any discussion related to ACP in the preoperative consultation. In this cohort, 141 (66%) patients did not have an AD on file before undergoing major surgery. The presence of AD was not associated with age (60-69 years, 26 [31%]; 70-79 years, 31 [33%]; ≥ 80 years, 15 [42%]; P = .55), number of comorbidities (1, 35 [32%]; 2, 18 [33%]; ≥ 3, 19 [40%]; P = .62), or type of procedure (oncological, 53 [32%]; vascular, 19 [42%]; P = .22). Moreover, there was no difference in preoperative communication about ACP or documentation of an AD for patients who were mailed a QPL brochure compared to those who received usual care (intervention, 38 [35%]; usual care, 34 [33%]; P = .77). Rates of AD documentation were associated with individual study sites with BWH and UWHC having higher rates of documentation (20 [50%] and 27 [44%], respectively) compared to OHSU, UCSF, or Rutgers (7 [17%], 17 [35%], and 1 [5%], respectively). Analysis from the interviews indicated that patients and families felt unprepared for serious surgical complications and had varied interpretations of ACP. Patients with complications were enthusiastic about ACP but did not think it was important to discuss their preferences for life-sustaining treatments with their surgeon preoperatively.

Conclusion. Although surgeons and patients report that they believe ACP is important, preoperative discussion of patient preferences rarely occurs. This study found that the frequency of ACP discussions or AD documentations among older patients undergoing high-risk oncologic or vascular surgery was low. Interventions that are aimed to increase rates of preoperative ACP discussions should be implemented to help prepare patients and their families for difficult decisions in the setting of serious surgical complications and could help decrease postoperative conflicts that result from unclear patient care goals.

Commentary

Surgeons and patients approach surgical interventions with optimistic outlooks while simultaneously preparing for unintended adverse outcomes. For patients, preoperative ACP discussions ease the burden on their families and ensure their wishes and care goals are communicated. For surgeons, these discussions inform them how best to support the values of the patient. Therefore, it is unsurprising that preoperative ACP is viewed favorably by both groups. Given the consensus that ACP is important in the care of older adults undergoing high-risk surgery, one would assume that preoperative ACP discussion is a standard of practice among surgeons and their aging patients. However, in a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial testing a patient-mediated intervention to improve preoperative communication, Kalbfell et al¹ showed that ACP discussions rarely take place prior to major surgery in older adults. This finding highlights the significant discrepancy between the belief that ACP is important, and the actual rate that it is practiced, in older patients undergoing high-risk surgery. This discordance is highly concerning because it suggests that surgeons who provide care to a very vulnerable subset of older patients may overlook an essential aspect of preoperative care and therefore lack a thorough and thoughtful understanding of the patient’s care goals. In practice, this omission can pose significant challenges associated with the surgeon and family’s decisions to use postoperative life-sustaining interventions or to manage unforeseen complications should a patient become unable to make medical decisions.

The barriers to conducting successful ACP discussions between surgeons and patients are multifactorial. Kalbfell et al¹ highlighted several of these barriers, including lack of patient efficacy, physician attitudes, and institutional values in older adults who require major surgeries. The inadequacy of patient efficacy in preoperative ACP is illustrated by findings from the primary, multisite trial of QPL intervention conducted by Schwarze et al. Interestingly, the authors found that patients who did not receive QPL brochure had no ACP discussions, and that QPL implementation did not significantly improve discussion rates despite its intent to encourage these discussions.² Possible explanations for this lack of engagement might be a lack of health literacy or patient efficacy in the study population. Qualitative data from the current study provided further evidence to support these explanations. For instance, some patients provided limited or incomplete information about their wishes for health care management while others felt it was unnecessary to have ACP discussions unless complications arose.¹ However, the latter example counters the purpose of ACP which is to enable patients to make plans about future health care and not reactive to a medical complication or emergency.

Surgeons bear a large responsibility in providing treatments that are consistent with the care goals of the patient. Thus, surgeons play a crucial role in engaging, guiding, and facilitating ACP discussions with patients. This role is even more critical when patients are unable or unwilling to initiate care goal discussions. Physician attitudes towards ACP, therefore, greatly influence the effectiveness of these discussions. In a study of self-administered surveys by vascular, neurologic, and cardiothoracic surgeons, greater than 90% of respondents viewed postoperative life-supporting therapy as necessary, and 54% would decline to operate on patients with an AD limiting life-supporting therapy.³ Moreover, the same study showed that 52% of respondents reported discussing AD before surgery, a figure that exceeded the actual rates at which ACP discussions occur in many other studies. In the current study, Kalbfell et al¹ also found that surgeons viewed ACP discussions largely in the context of AD creation and declined to investigate the full scope of patient preferences. These findings, when combined with other studies that indicate an incomplete understanding of ACP in some surgeons, suggest that not all physicians are able or willing to navigate these sometimes lengthy and difficult conversations with patients. This gap in practice provides opportunities for training in surgical specialties that center on optimizing preoperative ACP discussions to meet the care needs of older patients.

Institutional value and culture are important factors that impact physician behavior and the practice of ACP discussion. In the current study, the authors reported that the majority of ACP discussions were held by a minority of surgeons and that different institutions and study sites had vastly different rates of ACP documentation.¹ These results are further supported by findings of large variations between physicians and hospitals in ACP reporting in hospitalized frail older adults.⁴ These variations in practices at different institutions suggest that it is possible to improve rates of preoperative ACP discussion. Reasons for these differences need to be further investigated in order to identify strategies, resources, or trainings required by medical institutions to support surgeons to carry out ACP discussions with patients undergoing high-risk surgeries.

The study conducted by Kalbfell et al¹ has several strengths. For example, it included Spanish-speaking patients and the use of a Spanish version of the QPL intervention to account for cultural differences. The study also included multiple surgical specialties and institutions and captured a large and national sample, thus making its findings more generalizable. However, the lack of data on the duration of preoperative consultation visits in patients who completed ACP discussions poses a limitation to this study. This is relevant because surgeon availability to engage in lengthy ACP discussions may be limited due to busy clinical schedules. Additional data on the duration of preoperative visits inclusive of a thoughtfully conducted ACP discussion could help to modify clinical workflow to facilitate its uptake in surgical practices.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings from the current study indicate that patients and surgeons agree that preoperative ACP discussions are beneficial to the clinical care of older adults before high-risk surgeries. However, these important conversations do not occur frequently. Surgeons and health care institutions need to identify strategies to initiate, facilitate, and optimize productive preoperative ACP discussions to provide patient-centered care in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Financial disclosures: None.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

Patients in their 90s with cancer tolerated immunotherapy well with few serious adverse effects, and they lived for an average of 1.6 years after treatment, a small new study within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system reports.

Only 6.3% of 48 patients who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors experienced the most severe types of side effects – grade III/IV events – and a total of 27% had any adverse effects, according to the report, which was presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) being held virtually and inperson in Denver Colorado, September 24 to September 26, 2021.

“Our project should help give confidence to oncologists treating the elderly,” said Andrew Joseph Benefield, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Immunotherapy can be given safely and likely effectively in select individuals over the age of 90 with good performance status.”

Benefield and colleagues launched their study to gain insight into a little-studied area: How does cancer treatment affects nonagenarians? “I think many oncologists have been in a situation where they encounter an individual over the age of 90 years who has a good performance status, and they've wondered if immunotherapy would be helpful and safe, particularly given our knowledge of waning immune strength as people age,” he said.

The researchers retrospectively tracked patients with cancer who were at least 90 years old from 2016 to 2017 and were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Most were fit or fairly fit with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) physical performance scales of 0 or 1 (n = 26), and nearly all had cancer in stage IV (n = 42). Melanoma was the most common type of cancer (n = 19), followed by non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 15). Patients were treated with an average of 12.2 cycles.

“In general, we saw that treatment was well-tolerated,” Dr. Benefield said. “We also noted that a trend toward better long-term survival outcomes in individuals with very good performance status at the start of treatment. We hope to parse this out more as we add more data to our data-set, as the numbers are still too small for confident direct comparison.”

Dr. Benefield said he has treated a limited number of patients in their 90s who were highly physical fit for their age and “very eager” to be treated. “They wanted to do anything they could to maintain their lifestyle,” he said. “In my experience, aggressive supportive care and close monitoring for developing toxicities has been most helpful.”

The researchers don’t know the causes of death of many of the patients, and it’s not clear how they fared in their final days. Still, Dr. Benefield said, “extending someone's life by more than 1 year with relatively low risk of adverse effects is reasonable.”

Oncologist Melisa Wong, MD, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, reviewed the study and said in an interview that it “a valuable description of outcomes for nonagenarians receiving immunotherapy in the VA healthcare system.” As she noted, “many other studies of immunotherapy among older adults focus on patients aged 65 or 70 and older while very few focus on octogenarians or nonagenarians.”

The findings suggest that “it is important to move beyond chronological age and assess patients’ physiologic age through a geriatric assessment,” she said. “Geriatric assessment-derived risk scores have been shown to predict chemotherapy toxicity for older adults and research to develop similar tools for immunotherapy are ongoing.”

However, she cautioned that older patients may become suffer so much from the most common side effect of immunotherapy -- fatigue – that “their independence is at stake.”

“Some of these patient choose to stop immunotherapy because the side effects aren’t worth it anymore,” she said. “The challenge for oncologists is not knowing in advance which patients will fall into each of these categories.”

She added that her geriatric oncology research focuses on improving risk stratification for older adults, such as those who are at least 70 with lung adenocarcinoma.

Oncologist Grant R. Williams, MD, MSPH, director of the Cancer & Aging Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed in an interview that comprehensive geriatric assessments are important to guide treatment in the oldest adults. “In addition, it is important to elicit the goals of treatment as well,” he said. “For older adults that are fit or at least pre-frail and desire aggressive treatment, immunotherapy is a very reasonable approach, particularly when patients are closely monitored for side effects.”

No study funding is reported. The authors report no disclosures. Dr. Wong discloses an immediate family member is an employee and stock holder of Genentech. Dr. Williams has no disclosures.

George Froehle, PA, a primary care clinician at CentraCare in rural St. Cloud, Minn., has been prescribing the HIV prevention pill tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine since it was marketed by the brand name Truvada and the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2012. But recently, he’s been having conversations with patients about the new HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine (TAF/FTC, Descovy) as well.

“They may have a friend who has heard that Descovy is newer and safer,” Mr. Froehle said. But that’s not necessarily the case, at least according to lab values. A recent study in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases suggests that only between 1 in 10 and 1 in 3 switches to the new formulation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are indicated by lab work – and that nearly half of people receiving a prescription for the new version had lab results actually contraindicating the switch.

This, combined with the lower cost of generic Truvada and the steep cost of Descovy, led study coauthor and HIV PrEP prescriber Douglas Krakower, MD, and colleagues to suggest that the generic version should be standard of care for all people on PrEP unless otherwise indicated.

This just “makes good sense,” Dr. Krakower, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“It’s important to ultimately allow for patients and providers to have access to all of the PrEP options so they can choose the best option for each person,” he said. “But our data suggest that strategies to optimize the cost-effectiveness of PrEP prescribing, such as formulary interventions and education for patients and providers, could be beneficial – as long as there is an easy mechanism for patients and providers to override restrictions when there are clinical indications.”

Current PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t list a first-line or second-line treatment for PrEP. But recent guidance issued to insurance companies by the Biden administration specifically grants insurers permission to employ stepped formularies and cost sharing.

“Since the branded version of PrEP is not specified in the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation, plans and issuers may cover a generic version of PrEP without cost sharing and impose cost sharing on an equivalent branded version,” the rule, issued July 19, states. “However, plans and insurers must accommodate any individual for whom a particular PrEP medication [generic or brand name] would be medically inappropriate, as determined by the individual’s health care provider, by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the brand or nonpreferred brand version.”

Both drugs have been found to be 99% effective in stopping HIV acquisition in people at risk for it. Descovy is approved specifically for gay and bisexual men, transgender women, and anyone having anal sex. Ongoing studies are looking at the effectiveness of Descovy in people having vaginal sex. Generic Truvada has been approved for all people.
 

The biomarkers of switching

To be clear, both medicines are exceedingly safe, said lead author and epidemiologist Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Side effects have been mild and include nausea and diarrhea in the first month. What lab work tells clinicians is the potential for physiologic changes, but those changes don’t necessarily translate to clinical events.

“When I say harmful, I mean potentially harmful,” she said in an interview. “It’s really based on these incremental changes that maybe, in the long run, could be harmful.”

But she added that there are two types of damage from medicines: “There’s potential physiological damage, but there’s also potential financial damage.” While generic Truvada has a list price as low as $30 a bottle, Descovy has a list price of up to $2,000 a month. And the push for PrEP is growing. Recently, the head of the division of HIV/AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases urged providers to get all their “HIV-negative, at-risk patients on PrEP tomorrow,” in light of the latest HIV vaccine failure.

So Dr. Marcus and team looked at data from the 2892 people who started taking PrEP in the year before the FDA approved Descovy in October 2019. Participants accessed PrEP through Fenway Health, a Boston-area health clinic serving a largely gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer population, and the largest PrEP prescriber in New England. They then tracked which participants switched to Descovy and correlated the switches to lab work and CDC guidance for PrEP.

What they found was that just 11.9% of participants, or 343 people, switched to the newer formulation. That’s lower than the 27.2% who switched in nationally available data, which were released at a recent HIV conference. But when Dr. Krakower and colleagues looked at whether their PrEP prescriptions were appropriate based on the patients’ lab work, the findings were mixed.

On the one hand, they showed that 24 of those 343 people who switched to Descovy had creatinine clearance levels or bone mineral density measurements low enough to make the switch a good option. But that’s just 7% of all people who switched. They then ran a secondary model, in which they broadened the criteria for a switch from strictly those lab values to conditions that might indicate borderline kidney function, which could eventually lead to kidney damage. These included diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes, or borderline creatinine levels between 60 and 70 mL/minute.

“Even when we defined clinical indications as generously as we could, we still saw that only a minority had clinical indications for switching,” said “Most of the switching to TAF/FTC was potentially unnecessary, and some of it may have been harmful for people who had cardiovascular risk factors.”

That’s because although Descovy doesn’t affect renal and bone mineral markers, it does affect cholesterol levels and weight. Aftermarket and FDA data revealed a small but noticeable increase in statin use among people taking the new brand-name PrEP pill. When Marcus and colleagues looked for those biomarkers – total cholesterol greater than200, BMI of 30 or more, LDL cholesterol of more than 160 or HDL cholesterol of less than 40 – 14% of switches fit the criteria for contraindications for Descovy. That’s 10 times the rate of potential harm in switching as there was for those who stayed on the generic Truvada and would have been better served on Descovy. That came in at just 1.4%.

“There may be many reasons why patients or providers might choose to switch that we couldn’t document in our study,” she said. For instance, the newer formulation, Descovy, is a significantly smaller pill than the generic is. Or the perception of novelty might drive some switches.

“But I think we need qualitative work to understand how these decisions are being made,” she said in an interview. “It will be important to follow these patients to see what happens in terms of clinical outcomes.”

For his part, Mr. Froehle found the study intriguing. It reflects his own thinking around the value of the newer formulation. He also prescribes for people living with HIV. For them, the benefit of the new formulation of tenofovir present in Descovy has clear clinical relevance. After all, people living with HIV can be on their drug regimens for decades.

But people on PrEP aren’t likely to be on the pills as long, and so the real benefit of the newer, more expensive formulation is less clear. And he added that he’s already getting “pushback” from some insurance companies on the name-brand version, with companies asking for proof via lab values that a person has a history of kidney impairment or bone mineral density loss.

“It doesn’t happen a ton,” he said. “But it’s starting to happen, and normally it kind of builds from there.”

So when a patient comes in and asks specifically for Descovy, he usually will talk to them about it.

“If it’s what the patient wants and insurance covers it and it’s not unsafe for them to be on it, there might not be a reason to not prescribe Descovy,” said Mr. Froehle, who served as a sub-principal investigator for the DISCOVER clinical trial that showed the new PrEP was as effective as Truvada. “But now with Truvada being generic, we will talk about Truvada as being something we start up front because it may have a lower cost and it’s cheaper to the system. Then we can always switch to Descovy as needed.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Marcus reported receiving fees from Kaiser Permanente Northern California on a research grant from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Krakower reported having conducted research that was funded by Gilead Sciences and Merck, as well as honoraria for medical education content and presentations for Medscape Medical News, MED-IQ, and DKBMed and royalties from work conducted by UpToDate. Mr. Froehle reported receiving fees from Gilead Sciences in connection with a Gilead advisory board.

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

George Froehle, PA, a primary care clinician at CentraCare in rural St. Cloud, Minn., has been prescribing the HIV prevention pill tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine since it was marketed by the brand name Truvada and the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2012. But recently, he’s been having conversations with patients about the new HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine (TAF/FTC, Descovy) as well.

“They may have a friend who has heard that Descovy is newer and safer,” Mr. Froehle said. But that’s not necessarily the case, at least according to lab values. A recent study in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases suggests that only between 1 in 10 and 1 in 3 switches to the new formulation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are indicated by lab work – and that nearly half of people receiving a prescription for the new version had lab results actually contraindicating the switch.

This, combined with the lower cost of generic Truvada and the steep cost of Descovy, led study coauthor and HIV PrEP prescriber Douglas Krakower, MD, and colleagues to suggest that the generic version should be standard of care for all people on PrEP unless otherwise indicated.

This just “makes good sense,” Dr. Krakower, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“It’s important to ultimately allow for patients and providers to have access to all of the PrEP options so they can choose the best option for each person,” he said. “But our data suggest that strategies to optimize the cost-effectiveness of PrEP prescribing, such as formulary interventions and education for patients and providers, could be beneficial – as long as there is an easy mechanism for patients and providers to override restrictions when there are clinical indications.”

Current PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t list a first-line or second-line treatment for PrEP. But recent guidance issued to insurance companies by the Biden administration specifically grants insurers permission to employ stepped formularies and cost sharing.

“Since the branded version of PrEP is not specified in the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation, plans and issuers may cover a generic version of PrEP without cost sharing and impose cost sharing on an equivalent branded version,” the rule, issued July 19, states. “However, plans and insurers must accommodate any individual for whom a particular PrEP medication [generic or brand name] would be medically inappropriate, as determined by the individual’s health care provider, by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the brand or nonpreferred brand version.”

Both drugs have been found to be 99% effective in stopping HIV acquisition in people at risk for it. Descovy is approved specifically for gay and bisexual men, transgender women, and anyone having anal sex. Ongoing studies are looking at the effectiveness of Descovy in people having vaginal sex. Generic Truvada has been approved for all people.
 

The biomarkers of switching

To be clear, both medicines are exceedingly safe, said lead author and epidemiologist Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Side effects have been mild and include nausea and diarrhea in the first month. What lab work tells clinicians is the potential for physiologic changes, but those changes don’t necessarily translate to clinical events.

“When I say harmful, I mean potentially harmful,” she said in an interview. “It’s really based on these incremental changes that maybe, in the long run, could be harmful.”

But she added that there are two types of damage from medicines: “There’s potential physiological damage, but there’s also potential financial damage.” While generic Truvada has a list price as low as $30 a bottle, Descovy has a list price of up to $2,000 a month. And the push for PrEP is growing. Recently, the head of the division of HIV/AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases urged providers to get all their “HIV-negative, at-risk patients on PrEP tomorrow,” in light of the latest HIV vaccine failure.

So Dr. Marcus and team looked at data from the 2892 people who started taking PrEP in the year before the FDA approved Descovy in October 2019. Participants accessed PrEP through Fenway Health, a Boston-area health clinic serving a largely gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer population, and the largest PrEP prescriber in New England. They then tracked which participants switched to Descovy and correlated the switches to lab work and CDC guidance for PrEP.

What they found was that just 11.9% of participants, or 343 people, switched to the newer formulation. That’s lower than the 27.2% who switched in nationally available data, which were released at a recent HIV conference. But when Dr. Krakower and colleagues looked at whether their PrEP prescriptions were appropriate based on the patients’ lab work, the findings were mixed.

On the one hand, they showed that 24 of those 343 people who switched to Descovy had creatinine clearance levels or bone mineral density measurements low enough to make the switch a good option. But that’s just 7% of all people who switched. They then ran a secondary model, in which they broadened the criteria for a switch from strictly those lab values to conditions that might indicate borderline kidney function, which could eventually lead to kidney damage. These included diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes, or borderline creatinine levels between 60 and 70 mL/minute.

“Even when we defined clinical indications as generously as we could, we still saw that only a minority had clinical indications for switching,” said “Most of the switching to TAF/FTC was potentially unnecessary, and some of it may have been harmful for people who had cardiovascular risk factors.”

That’s because although Descovy doesn’t affect renal and bone mineral markers, it does affect cholesterol levels and weight. Aftermarket and FDA data revealed a small but noticeable increase in statin use among people taking the new brand-name PrEP pill. When Marcus and colleagues looked for those biomarkers – total cholesterol greater than200, BMI of 30 or more, LDL cholesterol of more than 160 or HDL cholesterol of less than 40 – 14% of switches fit the criteria for contraindications for Descovy. That’s 10 times the rate of potential harm in switching as there was for those who stayed on the generic Truvada and would have been better served on Descovy. That came in at just 1.4%.

“There may be many reasons why patients or providers might choose to switch that we couldn’t document in our study,” she said. For instance, the newer formulation, Descovy, is a significantly smaller pill than the generic is. Or the perception of novelty might drive some switches.

“But I think we need qualitative work to understand how these decisions are being made,” she said in an interview. “It will be important to follow these patients to see what happens in terms of clinical outcomes.”

For his part, Mr. Froehle found the study intriguing. It reflects his own thinking around the value of the newer formulation. He also prescribes for people living with HIV. For them, the benefit of the new formulation of tenofovir present in Descovy has clear clinical relevance. After all, people living with HIV can be on their drug regimens for decades.

But people on PrEP aren’t likely to be on the pills as long, and so the real benefit of the newer, more expensive formulation is less clear. And he added that he’s already getting “pushback” from some insurance companies on the name-brand version, with companies asking for proof via lab values that a person has a history of kidney impairment or bone mineral density loss.

“It doesn’t happen a ton,” he said. “But it’s starting to happen, and normally it kind of builds from there.”

So when a patient comes in and asks specifically for Descovy, he usually will talk to them about it.

“If it’s what the patient wants and insurance covers it and it’s not unsafe for them to be on it, there might not be a reason to not prescribe Descovy,” said Mr. Froehle, who served as a sub-principal investigator for the DISCOVER clinical trial that showed the new PrEP was as effective as Truvada. “But now with Truvada being generic, we will talk about Truvada as being something we start up front because it may have a lower cost and it’s cheaper to the system. Then we can always switch to Descovy as needed.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Marcus reported receiving fees from Kaiser Permanente Northern California on a research grant from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Krakower reported having conducted research that was funded by Gilead Sciences and Merck, as well as honoraria for medical education content and presentations for Medscape Medical News, MED-IQ, and DKBMed and royalties from work conducted by UpToDate. Mr. Froehle reported receiving fees from Gilead Sciences in connection with a Gilead advisory board.

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

George Froehle, PA, a primary care clinician at CentraCare in rural St. Cloud, Minn., has been prescribing the HIV prevention pill tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine since it was marketed by the brand name Truvada and the Food and Drug Administration approved it in 2012. But recently, he’s been having conversations with patients about the new HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine (TAF/FTC, Descovy) as well.

“They may have a friend who has heard that Descovy is newer and safer,” Mr. Froehle said. But that’s not necessarily the case, at least according to lab values. A recent study in the journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases suggests that only between 1 in 10 and 1 in 3 switches to the new formulation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are indicated by lab work – and that nearly half of people receiving a prescription for the new version had lab results actually contraindicating the switch.

This, combined with the lower cost of generic Truvada and the steep cost of Descovy, led study coauthor and HIV PrEP prescriber Douglas Krakower, MD, and colleagues to suggest that the generic version should be standard of care for all people on PrEP unless otherwise indicated.

This just “makes good sense,” Dr. Krakower, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“It’s important to ultimately allow for patients and providers to have access to all of the PrEP options so they can choose the best option for each person,” he said. “But our data suggest that strategies to optimize the cost-effectiveness of PrEP prescribing, such as formulary interventions and education for patients and providers, could be beneficial – as long as there is an easy mechanism for patients and providers to override restrictions when there are clinical indications.”

Current PrEP guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t list a first-line or second-line treatment for PrEP. But recent guidance issued to insurance companies by the Biden administration specifically grants insurers permission to employ stepped formularies and cost sharing.

“Since the branded version of PrEP is not specified in the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation, plans and issuers may cover a generic version of PrEP without cost sharing and impose cost sharing on an equivalent branded version,” the rule, issued July 19, states. “However, plans and insurers must accommodate any individual for whom a particular PrEP medication [generic or brand name] would be medically inappropriate, as determined by the individual’s health care provider, by having a mechanism for waiving the otherwise applicable cost-sharing for the brand or nonpreferred brand version.”

Both drugs have been found to be 99% effective in stopping HIV acquisition in people at risk for it. Descovy is approved specifically for gay and bisexual men, transgender women, and anyone having anal sex. Ongoing studies are looking at the effectiveness of Descovy in people having vaginal sex. Generic Truvada has been approved for all people.
 

The biomarkers of switching

To be clear, both medicines are exceedingly safe, said lead author and epidemiologist Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Side effects have been mild and include nausea and diarrhea in the first month. What lab work tells clinicians is the potential for physiologic changes, but those changes don’t necessarily translate to clinical events.

“When I say harmful, I mean potentially harmful,” she said in an interview. “It’s really based on these incremental changes that maybe, in the long run, could be harmful.”

But she added that there are two types of damage from medicines: “There’s potential physiological damage, but there’s also potential financial damage.” While generic Truvada has a list price as low as $30 a bottle, Descovy has a list price of up to $2,000 a month. And the push for PrEP is growing. Recently, the head of the division of HIV/AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases urged providers to get all their “HIV-negative, at-risk patients on PrEP tomorrow,” in light of the latest HIV vaccine failure.

So Dr. Marcus and team looked at data from the 2892 people who started taking PrEP in the year before the FDA approved Descovy in October 2019. Participants accessed PrEP through Fenway Health, a Boston-area health clinic serving a largely gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and otherwise queer population, and the largest PrEP prescriber in New England. They then tracked which participants switched to Descovy and correlated the switches to lab work and CDC guidance for PrEP.

What they found was that just 11.9% of participants, or 343 people, switched to the newer formulation. That’s lower than the 27.2% who switched in nationally available data, which were released at a recent HIV conference. But when Dr. Krakower and colleagues looked at whether their PrEP prescriptions were appropriate based on the patients’ lab work, the findings were mixed.

On the one hand, they showed that 24 of those 343 people who switched to Descovy had creatinine clearance levels or bone mineral density measurements low enough to make the switch a good option. But that’s just 7% of all people who switched. They then ran a secondary model, in which they broadened the criteria for a switch from strictly those lab values to conditions that might indicate borderline kidney function, which could eventually lead to kidney damage. These included diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes, or borderline creatinine levels between 60 and 70 mL/minute.

“Even when we defined clinical indications as generously as we could, we still saw that only a minority had clinical indications for switching,” said “Most of the switching to TAF/FTC was potentially unnecessary, and some of it may have been harmful for people who had cardiovascular risk factors.”

That’s because although Descovy doesn’t affect renal and bone mineral markers, it does affect cholesterol levels and weight. Aftermarket and FDA data revealed a small but noticeable increase in statin use among people taking the new brand-name PrEP pill. When Marcus and colleagues looked for those biomarkers – total cholesterol greater than200, BMI of 30 or more, LDL cholesterol of more than 160 or HDL cholesterol of less than 40 – 14% of switches fit the criteria for contraindications for Descovy. That’s 10 times the rate of potential harm in switching as there was for those who stayed on the generic Truvada and would have been better served on Descovy. That came in at just 1.4%.

“There may be many reasons why patients or providers might choose to switch that we couldn’t document in our study,” she said. For instance, the newer formulation, Descovy, is a significantly smaller pill than the generic is. Or the perception of novelty might drive some switches.

“But I think we need qualitative work to understand how these decisions are being made,” she said in an interview. “It will be important to follow these patients to see what happens in terms of clinical outcomes.”

For his part, Mr. Froehle found the study intriguing. It reflects his own thinking around the value of the newer formulation. He also prescribes for people living with HIV. For them, the benefit of the new formulation of tenofovir present in Descovy has clear clinical relevance. After all, people living with HIV can be on their drug regimens for decades.

But people on PrEP aren’t likely to be on the pills as long, and so the real benefit of the newer, more expensive formulation is less clear. And he added that he’s already getting “pushback” from some insurance companies on the name-brand version, with companies asking for proof via lab values that a person has a history of kidney impairment or bone mineral density loss.

“It doesn’t happen a ton,” he said. “But it’s starting to happen, and normally it kind of builds from there.”

So when a patient comes in and asks specifically for Descovy, he usually will talk to them about it.

“If it’s what the patient wants and insurance covers it and it’s not unsafe for them to be on it, there might not be a reason to not prescribe Descovy,” said Mr. Froehle, who served as a sub-principal investigator for the DISCOVER clinical trial that showed the new PrEP was as effective as Truvada. “But now with Truvada being generic, we will talk about Truvada as being something we start up front because it may have a lower cost and it’s cheaper to the system. Then we can always switch to Descovy as needed.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Marcus reported receiving fees from Kaiser Permanente Northern California on a research grant from Gilead Sciences. Dr. Krakower reported having conducted research that was funded by Gilead Sciences and Merck, as well as honoraria for medical education content and presentations for Medscape Medical News, MED-IQ, and DKBMed and royalties from work conducted by UpToDate. Mr. Froehle reported receiving fees from Gilead Sciences in connection with a Gilead advisory board.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

New evidence suggests a drug used to lower blood sugar levels may also help extend the duration of preterm pregnancies in women with preeclampsia.

The findings from a small clinical trial, published Sept. 23 in the BMJ, showed that pregnant women who received the diabetes medication metformin prolonged their pregnancy by a week compared to those who received a placebo. Although this finding was not statistically significant, researchers said they are “cautiously optimistic” about the treatment of preterm preeclampsia.

“We hope that it will encourage others to test not only metformin but also other promising therapeutic candidates to treat and prevent preeclampsia,” study author Catherine Cluver, MBChB, FCOG, PhD, associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, said in an interview.

Preeclampsia, a condition that occurs about 1 in 25 pregnancies in the United States, happens when a woman develops high blood pressure and protein in her urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preterm preeclampsia is a severe variant affecting 0.5% of all pregnancies, or 10% of those with preeclampsia, researchers wrote in the study. The condition is associated with more maternal and neonatal death and increases their risks of developing an illness.

Dr. Cluver said that when a mother develops preeclampsia, the lining of her blood vessels, or the endothelium, is affected and there are specific proteins in the blood that increase. Dr. Cluver’s preclinical study found that metformin improved endothelial function and decreased these biomarkers in laboratory work.

“We therefore set out to see if metformin could be used to prolong gestation in preterm preeclampsia,” she said.

For the study, Dr. Cluver and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to compare the prolongation of pregnancies among women who were at least 26 months pregnant with preterm preeclampsia. They were treated with either 3 grams of extended-release metformin (90 women), or a matching placebo (90 women).*

In the treatment group, the average time from the start of the study to delivery was 17.7 days, compared to 10.1 days in the placebo group. The median difference was 7.6 days.

The researchers also found that 40% of women in the metformin group reached 34 weeks’ gestation compared with 28% of those in the placebo group. Fewer women in the metformin group delivered because of fetal indications such as fetal distress or other issues – 33% vs. 44%. However, the researchers said those results were not statistically significant.

They said they were cautiously optimistic when they found that the median time for prolongation of pregnancy in the metformin group was 17.5 days compared with 7.9 days in the placebo group, findings that were statistically significant.

Some adverse effects participants experienced while taking metformin during their pregnancy included diarrhea and an increase in nausea.

Although the study is important in maternal-fetal medicine and is a novel approach to preterm preeclampsia, the findings weren’t strong enough, but they point to the need for further study, said Victor Klein, MD, MBA, CPHRM, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy who was not involved in the study.

“Even though they did have an improved outcome, it wasn’t strong enough. It wasn’t long enough to prove that the medicine was useful or efficacious,” said Dr. Klein, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at North Shore University Hospital, New York.

Metformin is also used to treat gestational diabetes, which is an “advantage of repurposing the drug is that it is likely to be safe,” the researchers wrote. They said longer term follow-up data might be worthwhile in future trials.

None of the experts had conflicts of interest to disclose.

*This story was updated on 10/6/2021.

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

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

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

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

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

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