One year of the pandemic - how European endocrinologists responded to the crisis: a statement from the European Society of Endocrinology.

Changes that COVID-19 induced in endocrine daily practice as well as the role of endocrine and metabolic comorbidities in COVID-19 outcomes were among the striking features of this last year. The aim of this statement is to illustrate the major characteristics of the response of European endocrinologists to the pandemic including the disclosure of the endocrine phenotype of COVID-19 with diabetes, obesity and hypovitaminosis D playing a key role in this clinical setting with its huge implication for the prevention and management of the disease. The role of the European Society of Endocrinology (ESE) as a reference point of the endocrine community during the pandemic will also be highlighted, including the refocusing of its educational and advocacy activities.

Use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the United States for men age ≥65, 1999-2015: Implications for practice interventions.

BACKGROUND: Various professional organizations have issued recommendations on use of the PSA test to screen for prostate cancer in different age groups. AIMS: Using Medicare claims databases, we aimed to determine rates of PSA testing in the context of screening recommendations during 1999-2015 for US men age ≥65, stratified by age group and census regions, after excluding claims relating to all prostate-related conditions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medicare claims databases encompassed 9.71-11.12 million men for the years under study. PSA testing rate was the proportion of men with ≥1 test(s) per 12 months of continuous enrollment. Men diagnosed with any prostate-related condition were excluded. Annual percent change (APC) in PSA test use was estimated using joinpoint regression analysis. In 1999-2015, annual testing rate was 10.1%-23.1%, age ≥85; 16.6%-31.0%, age 80-84; 23.8%-35.8%, age 75-79; 28.3%-36.9%, age 70-74; and 26.4%-33.6%, age 65-69. From 1999 to 2015, PSA testing rate decreased 40.7%, 29.9%, 13.9%, and 2.9%, respectively, for men age ≥85, 80-84, 75-79, and 70-74. For men age 65-69, test use increased by 0.3%. Significant APC trends were: APC1999-2002  = +8.1%, P = .029 and APC2008-2015  = -9.0%, P < .001 for men age ≥85; APC2008-2015  = -7.1%, P = .001 for men age 80-84; APC2001-2015  = -2.5%, P < .001 for men age 75-79; APC2008-2015  = -3.3%, P = .007 for men age 70-74; and APC2010-2015  = -5.2%, P = .014 for men age 65-69. COCLUSION: Although decreased from 1999 to 2015, PSA testing rates remained high for men age ≥70. Further research could help understand why PSA testing continues inconsistent with recommendations.

Role of phototherapy in the era of biologics.

Phototherapy is a safe and effective treatment for many dermatologic conditions. With the advent of novel biologics and small molecule inhibitors, it is important to critically evaluate the role of phototherapy in dermatology. Surveys have shown that many dermatology residency programs do not dedicate time to teaching residents how to prescribe or administer phototherapy. Limitations of phototherapy include access to a center, time required for treatments, and insurance approval. Home phototherapy, a viable option, is also underused. However, it should be emphasized that modern phototherapy has been in use for over 40 years, has an excellent safety profile, and does not require laboratory monitoring. It can be safely combined with many other treatment modalities, including biologics and small molecule inhibitors. In addition, phototherapy costs significantly less than these novel agents. Dermatologists are the only group of physicians who have the expertise and proper training to deliver this treatment modality to our patients. Therefore, to continue to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care, it is imperative that phototherapy be maintained as an integral part of the dermatology treatment armamentarium.

The Origins, Evolution, and Spread of Anesthesia Monitoring Standards: From Boston to Across the World.

In the mid-1980s, the anesthesia departments at hospitals affiliated with Harvard Medical School were faced with a challenge: mounting medical malpractice costs. Malpractice insurance was provided by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO), a patient safety and medical malpractice insurance company owned by and providing service to the Harvard medical community. CRICO spearheaded an effort to reduce these costs and ultimately found a way to decrease the risks associated with anesthesia. Here, we chronicle events that led to the dramatic changes in medical practice that resulted from the activities of a small group of concerned anesthesiologists at Harvard-affiliated hospitals. We place these events in a historical perspective and explore how other specialties followed this example, and end with current strategies that minimize the risk associated with anesthesia. We conducted interviews with principals who formulated original standards of patient monitoring. In addition, we consulted documents in the public domain and primary source material. Efforts of these pioneers resulted in the establishment of the seminal Harvard-based anesthesia monitoring standards for minimal monitoring. What followed was an unprecedented transformation of the entire field. After the implementation of these standards at Harvard-affiliated hospitals, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) adopted "Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring" for use during the administration of all anesthetics in the United States. Other nations have since adopted similar guidelines and these practices have resulted in significant improvements in patient safety. Currently, we estimate mortality due to anesthesia in healthy patients to be 1:400,000-perhaps as much as 10 times lower since the early 1980s. What began as an attempt to lower medical malpractice costs in a group of university hospitals became a worldwide effort that resulted in improvements in patient safety. Other specialties have adopted similar measures. Currently, an attitude and appreciation of safety are exemplified by several practices that include among others-the adherence to these patient safety guidelines, simulator training, the promulgation of standards and guidelines by ASA, and the use of a safety checklist before induction of anesthesia.

Trends in antidiabetic drug utilization and expenditure in Denmark: A 22-year nationwide study.

AIMS: To examine the nationwide trends in antidiabetic drug utilization and expenditure in Denmark over the past 22 years. METHODS: Data on antidiabetic use and expenditure from 1996 to 2017 were retrieved from the Register of Medicinal Product Statistics. Antidiabetic drug use is reported as defined daily dose (DDD) in total counts and per 1000 inhabitants/d. Expenditure is reported as volume sold in total counts per 1000 inhabitants and as annual mean expenditure. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, the total use of antidiabetic drugs increased from 16.4 to 55.8 DDDs per 1000 inhabitants/d, while total expenditure increased from €59 to €286 m. The introduction of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors has, since 2005, led to considerable variation in the proportional use of the different drug classes. Use of insulin and insulin analogues accounted for the majority of the cost of antidiabetic drugs, peaking at 75% in 2008; however, its proportional impact on overall antidiabetic drug expenditure decreased to ~44% in 2017. In contrast, a steep increase in GLP-1RA expenditure was observed from 2010 to 2017, reaching an annual cost of €85 m (~29% of all antidiabetic expenditure). CONCLUSION: Antidiabetic drug utilization and cost in Denmark has increased considerably over the last 22 years, in accordance with the increased incidence of type 2 diabetes and changes in treatment guidelines. The release of several novel antidiabetic drugs seems to be responsible for the increase in antidiabetic drug expenditure.

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Manage Diabetes: Has the Evidence Changed Since 2008?

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies from high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985-2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (≤$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001-$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001-$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985-2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management, 2) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy, 3) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers, 4) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and 5) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). In the very cost-effective category are 1) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8-10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D, 2) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care, 3) statin therapy compared with no statin therapy for individuals with T2D and history of cardiovascular disease, 4) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care, 5) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening, 6) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care, 7) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation, 8) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care, 9) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin, 10) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ≥50 years, and 11) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.

"Entrenched practices and other biases": unpacking the historical, economic, professional, and social resistance to de-implementation.

BACKGROUND: In their article on "Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices," Prasad and Ioannidis (IS 9:1, 2014) referred to extra-scientific "entrenched practices and other biases" that hinder evidence-based de-implementation. DISCUSSION: Using the case example of the de-implementation of radical mastectomy, we disaggregated "entrenched practices and other biases" and analyzed the historical, economic, professional, and social forces that presented resistance to de-implementation. We found that these extra-scientific factors operated to sustain a commitment to radical mastectomy, even after the evidence slated the procedure for de-implementation, because the factors holding radical mastectomy in place were beyond the control of individual clinicians. We propose to expand de-implementation theory through the inclusion of extra-scientific factors. If the outcome to which we aim is appropriate and timely de-implementation, social scientific analysis will illuminate the context within which the healthcare practitioner practices and, in doing so, facilitate de-implementation by pointing to avenues that lead to systems change. The implications of our analysis lead us to contend that intervening in the broader context in which clinicians work--the social, political, and economic realms--rather than focusing on healthcare professionals' behavior, may indeed be a fruitful approach to effect change.

The origins of American health libertarianism.

This Article examines Americans' enduring demand for freedom of therapeutic choice as a popular constitutional movement originating in the United States' early years. In exploring extrajudicial advocacy for therapeutic choice between the American Revolution and the Civil War, this piece illustrates how multiple concepts of freedom in addition to bodily freedom bolstered the concept of a constitutional right to medical liberty. There is a deep current of belief in the United States that people have a right to choose their preferred treatments without government interference. Modern American history has given rise to movements for access to abortion, life-ending drugs, unapproved cancer treatments, and medical marijuana. Recently, cries of "Death Panels" have routinely been directed against health care reform proposals that citizens believe would limit the products and procedures covered by government health insurance. Some of the most prominent contemporary struggles for health freedom have been waged in court. But other important recent battles for freedom of therapeutic choice have taken place in other forums, from legislative hearings to Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meetings to public demonstrations. This attitude of therapeutic libertarianism is not new. Drawing mainly on primary historical sources, this Article examines arguments in favor of freedom of therapeutic choice voiced in antebellum America in the context of battles against state licensing regimes. After considering some anti-licensing arguments made before independence, it discusses the views and statements of Benjamin Rush, an influential founding father who was also the most prominent American physician of the early national period. The Article then analyzes the Jacksonian-era battle against medical licensing laws waged by the practitioners and supporters of a school of botanical medicine known as Thomsonianism. This triumphant struggle was waged in explicitly constitutional terms, even though it occurred entirely outside of the courts. The Thomsonian campaign thus offers one of the most striking examples of a successful popular constitutional movement in American history. This article shows that, at its origin, the American commitment to freedom of therapeutic choice was based on notions of not only bodily freedom, but also economic freedom, freedom of conscience, and freedom of injury. Finally, this Article considers ways in which this early history helps illuminate the nature of current struggles for freedom of therapeutic choice.

[Ethical aspirations and the reality of medical practice at the end of the Ancien Regime]. / Aspirations ethiques et réalité de la pratique médicale a la fin de l'Ancien Régime.

At the end of the 18th century, economic survival was difficult for physicians. The medical market was crowded and to build (and seduce) a clientele, they had to pay particular attention to their appearance. Being well dressed and travelling by horse or in a carriage was necessary to demonstrate that they had a good reputation and were a "good" doctor. However, this still did not guarantee financial security for the doctor and his family. In an era when medical fees were only just beginning to be discussed, it was difficult to know how to bill patients and how to get paid. At the same time, the first texts on medical ethics appeared, insisting on modesty, authenticity, delicacy, and sincerity. In this article, by exploring personal archives and printed moral prescriptions, I will suggest that there were tensions between the everyday difficulties of medical practice and the recommendations on medical ethics, tensions that had consequences for the patient-doctor relationship.

Thanks, but no thanks: how denial of osteopathic service in World War I and World War II shaped the profession.

Osteopathic physicians were denied the same rights and privileges that were granted to allopathic physicians by the US government regarding voluntary and compulsory service in World War I and World War II. Even after changes to the examination process allowed osteopathic physicians to take the examinations required to obtain commission as a physician in the army, osteopathic physicians' service was still rejected. The US government's decision to ban DOs from serving in the war was a blessing in disguise that led to tremendous changes in osteopathic medicine, education, and public acceptance of osteopathic physicians. Using primary documents from military officials, congressional hearings, and archived publications of the American Osteopathic Association, the author recounts the battle osteopathic physicians fought to serve their country during war and the challenges they faced while obtaining both legal and social equality in the eyes of the government and the public.

Regulations with plenty of loopholes--the doctors' prescription rights during the era of prohibition 1916-1926.

BACKGROUND: In Norway, the sale of distilled spirits was prohibited from 1916 to 1926, and fortified wines were banned from 1917 to 1923. This period is often referred to as The Prohibition. The consumption of alcohol declined somewhat, but at a high price: Increased smuggling, moonshining and abuse of prescriptions. The latter was caused by the doctors' exclusive right to prescribe alcohol, which some doctors abused for the sake of personal gain. KNOWLEDGE BASIS: The article is based on a review of the records of the Storting's deliberations concerning prescription practices in the period 1916-1926, as well as articles on alcohol issues in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association from the same period. RESULTS: With the aid of increasingly strict regulations, the authorities sought to stem the activities of the so-called «whisky doctors¼. The restrictions and controls imposed on their prescribing rights turned out not to be very effective, however, since the doctors' rights were firmly established. In combination with weaknesses in the legislative base, this hampered the criminal prosecution of doctors who wrote prescriptions in a big way. The abuse reached its climax in 1923. It was only with the enactment of the Prescription Act which came into force on 1 March 1924 that the authorities finally succeeded in gaining control of the abuse of prescriptions. The sale of spirits on prescription subsequently dropped sharply. INTERPRETATION: The prescription of spirits had gradually spiralled out of control, and the repeated control measures enacted by the authorities proved insufficient. When the Prescription Act was finally adopted after three attempts in the Storting, time was in reality up for the prohibition.

«Would a doctor really endeavour to refuse a patient his cognac?!¼--doctors' prescription practices in the prohibition era 1916-1926.

BACKGROUND: In Norway, all sales of distilled spirits were prohibited from 1916 to 1926 and fortified wine was also banned from 1917 to 1923, a period of history called The Prohibition. During this time, the doctors served as gatekeepers who regulated the population's access to alcohol, since a prescription was the only legal way of obtaining fortified wine and distilled spirits. Many have claimed that the doctors failed in this role and undermined Norwegian prohibition policy. KNOWLEDGE BASE: The article is based on a review of articles on the alcohol issue published in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. RESULTS: Many doctors were of the opinion that alcohol had beneficial health effects, for prevention and alleviation as well as to provide a cure. Moreover, few doctors were temperance advocates and many of them were opposed to the prohibition, including the Director of Health. Over time, many doctors prescribed large amounts of spirits and fortified wine. However, there were few real whisky doctors. The medical community was strongly in favour of rationing, i.e. letting people acquire a certain amount of alcohol without any medical supervision, but this proposal never gained political acceptance. INTERPRETATION: The doctors had a certain responsibility for this erosion of the prohibition, and thereby also for its final demise. The whisky doctors were a threat to the profession's reputation, and the most unscrupulous were excluded from the Norwegian Medical Association. The main responsibility for the situation with regard to prescriptions, however, fell on the health authorities and politicians, who delayed the introduction of effective regulations for far too long.

Drug advertising, continuing medical education, and physician prescribing: a historical review and reform proposal.

Through the 1960s, many people claimed that drug advertising was educational and physicians often relied on it. Continuing Medical Education (CME) was developed to provide an alternative. However, because CME relied on grants, industry funders chose the subjects offered. Now policymakers worry that drug firms support CME to promote sales and that commercial support biases prescribing and fosters inappropriate drug use. A historical review reveals parallel problems between advertising and industry-funded CME. To preclude industry influence and improve CME, we should ensure independent funding by taxing medical industries, facilities and physicians. Independent public and professional authorities should create CME curricula. An independent agency should allocate all funds to educational institutions for approved curricula.

The morning visit by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., M.D.

Today, physicians in general and neurosurgeons in particular practice in an era of fundamental change in Medicine from a profession to an industry. This change has produced erosion in the very personal physician-patient relationship. "The Morning Visit" is a poem written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., M.D., a 19th century physician, poet, and humanist. Although this beautiful poem was written approximately 150 years ago, it seems contemporarily relevant with its plea for the resurrection of the human touch in the behavior of physicians. It is in this spirit that this poem is shared with the readers of Neurosurgery.

Keeping modern in medicine: pharmaceutical promotion and physician education in postwar America.

Recent critiques of the role of pharmaceutical promotion in medical practice invoke a nostalgic version of 1950s and 1960s medicine as representing an uncomplicated relationship between an innovative pharmaceutical industry and an idealistic and sovereign medical profession-a relationship that was later corrupted by regulatory or business practice changes in the 1980s or 1990s. However, the escalation of innovation and promotion in the pharmaceutical industry at mid-century had already provoked a broader crisis of overflow in medical education in which physicians came to use both commercial and professional sources in an attempt to "keep modern" by incorporating emerging therapeutics into their practices. This phenomenon was simultaneously a crisis for the medical profession- playing a key role in attempts to inculcate a "rational therapeutics"-and a marketing opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry, and produced the structural foundations for contemporary debates regarding the role of pharmaceutical promotion in medical practice. Tracing the issue from the advent of the wonder drugs through today's concerns regarding formal CME, we document how and why the pharmaceutical industry was allowed (and even encouraged) to develop and maintain the central role it now plays within postgraduate medical education and prescribing practice.