Clinical Psychiatry News

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognition and memory, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues vs their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, department of neurology, Boston Medical Center, told this news organization.

The findings will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting on April 17.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase told this news organization.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in their latest statement on the topic, reported by this news organization, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognition and memory, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues vs their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, department of neurology, Boston Medical Center, told this news organization.

The findings will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting on April 17.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase told this news organization.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in their latest statement on the topic, reported by this news organization, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of sleep apnea, including snorting, gasping, or paused breathing during sleep, are associated with a significantly greater risk for problems with cognition and memory, results from a large study showed.

Data from a representative sample of US adults show that those who reported sleep apnea symptoms were about 50% more likely to also report cognitive issues vs their counterparts without such symptoms.

“For clinicians, these findings suggest a potential benefit of considering sleep apnea as a possible contributing or exacerbating factor in individuals experiencing memory or cognitive problems. This could prompt further evaluation for sleep apnea, particularly in at-risk individuals,” study investigator Dominique Low, MD, MPH, department of neurology, Boston Medical Center, told this news organization.

The findings will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) 2024 Annual Meeting on April 17.
 

Need to Raise Awareness

The findings are based on 4257 adults who participated in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and completed questionnaires covering sleep, memory, cognition, and decision-making abilities.

Those who reported snorting, gasping, or breathing pauses during sleep were categorized as experiencing sleep apnea symptoms. Those who reported memory trouble, periods of confusion, difficulty concentrating, or decision-making problems were classified as having memory or cognitive symptoms.

Overall, 1079 participants reported symptoms of sleep apnea. Compared with people without sleep apnea, those with symptoms were more likely to have cognitive problems (33% vs 20%) and have greater odds of having memory or cognitive symptoms, even after adjusting for age, gender, race, and education (adjusted odds ratio, 2.02; P < .001).

“While the study did not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the findings suggest the importance of raising awareness about the potential link between sleep and cognitive function. Early identification and treatment may improve overall health and potentially lead to a better quality of life,” Dr. Low said.

Limitations of the study include self-reported data on sleep apnea symptoms and cognitive issues sourced from one survey.
 

Consistent Data

Reached for comment, Matthew Pase, PhD, with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, said the results are similar to earlier work that found a link between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and cognition.

For example, in a recent study, the presence of mild to severe OSA, identified using overnight polysomnography in five community-based cohorts with more than 5900 adults, was associated with poorer cognitive test performance, Dr. Pase told this news organization.

“These and other results underscore the importance of healthy sleep for optimal brain health. Future research is needed to test if treating OSA and other sleep disorders can reduce the risk of cognitive impairment,” Dr. Pase said.

Yet, in their latest statement on the topic, reported by this news organization, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded there remains insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA among asymptomatic adults and those with unrecognized symptoms.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Low and Dr. Pase had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do I deserve to be here? Am I doing what I’m supposed to be doing? Is anyone going to tell me if I’m terrible?

Kerri Palamara McGrath, MD, remembered worrying over these questions as chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009. Having graduated from New York Medical College, she felt out of step with her peers from Ivy League medical schools and considered herself lucky to be there. In order to measure up, she felt she had to work twice as hard as everybody else.

But as Dr. McGrath moved through residency and spoke with other trainees, she had a realization. Her constant fears, the nagging voice in her head saying she wasn’t good enough, these issues weren’t exclusive to her; they were pervasive.

Today, Dr. McGrath is the director of the Center for Physician Well-Being at Massachusetts General Hospital. The facility aims to address physician stress and equip doctors with the tools to navigate personal and professional issues. Dr. McGrath is also a physician coach, a growing nonclinical field, helping doctors identify their own stressors, values, and measures of success. This type of internal work, Dr. McGrath feels, can help alleviate imposter syndrome, that inner refrain saying: I’ll never be good enough.

What Is Imposter Syndrome?

While not a formal medical diagnosis, imposter syndrome has been defined as «an internal experience of intellectual phoniness.» It›s considered an inability to internalize success and a tendency to attribute gains to external factors — for example, being in the right place at the right time.

“Many people describe imposter phenomena in medicine as fearing that others are going to realize that they don’t belong somewhere or question why they’re there,” said Dr. McGrath.

It’s a “fear of being found out,” added Jessi Gold, MD, a psychiatrist who treats physicians. “In many ways, imposter syndrome shows up as a conflict between the outer self — the metaphorical mask you’re ‘putting on’ [in order] to achieve, and the inner self — how you feel like you’re not measuring up.”

Dr. McGrath said she experienced imposter syndrome before her medical career even began. She applied to 26 medical schools. Only one accepted her. “The whole time, I was like, ‘This is the only school you got into, so you’re obviously not good enough,’” she recalled. Later, having been chosen by a “coveted” institution like Mass General, “you assume that, at some point, someone will realize that the gig is up, that everybody’s better than you.”

Where Does Imposter Syndrome Come From?

Dr. McGrath felt that in medicine, high expectations are often coupled with low self-compassion. “We are so hard on ourselves, and when we set our expectations so high, we’re constantly disappointed in ourselves,” she said. External markers of success — papers published, promotions, or even social media — can further fuel this.

It can feel like “striving for excellence in a sea of excellence,” Dr. McGrath added, and this can invite comparison.

Ravi Parikh, MD, a medical oncologist and physician-scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, remembered struggling with imposter syndrome early in his career. As a new doctor, he had a ton of questions, and yet those above him seemed able to make weighty decisions on their own. The comparison shook his confidence. “I remember thinking that when I became an attending, I would just magically not have to run decisions by people,” said Dr. Parikh. But even then, the “magical” self-assurance didn’t materialize.

Research found that imposter syndrome is more likely to affect women and groups that are underrepresented in medicine. But overall, the incidence is remarkably high.

A 2023 survey published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons found that 90% of female surgeons and more than two-thirds of male ones experienced imposter syndrome. In a 2023 study on medical students in JAMA, it was nearly universal; 97% reported feelings of imposter syndrome with women 1.7 times more likely to report it than men and underrepresented groups often three times more likely.

‘I’m Clearly in the Minority Here’

The term “imposter” also suggests a lack of belonging. If medicine doesn’t “look like you,” this can create feelings of pressure, like you’re “representing a whole group with your mere existence,” said Dr. Gold, “and you have to keep proving yourself.”

Chloe Slocum, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, remembered that feeling of conspicuous “otherness.” As a resident, Dr. Slocum began presenting at national meetings and later pursued physician leadership training. Many of her counterparts at these events were older males. “At some programs early on, I’d wonder, ‘I’m clearly in the minority here; did they really make the right decision including me in this?’”

Reactions from those around you can also have an impact. Dr. McGrath — who is 5’ 2” and describes herself as looking “very young” — noted that when she started out, neither patients nor other providers thought she was a doctor.

“I have tried everything in the book to be seen, in somebody else’s eyes, as more consistent with a doctor,” she said. “I’ve dressed down. I’ve dressed up. I’ve worn heels. I’ve worn flats. I’ve worn glasses. I’ve done all the things. When you’re constantly being told you don’t look like a doctor, you start questioning yourself.”

The Emotional Toll

If that sounds mentally exhausting, it is. Research found that imposter syndrome is often linked with burnout, depression, and anxiety.

The need to prove yourself and prevent being “found out” can push some doctors toward traditional measurements of success — promotions or published work, said Dr. Gold. But “if you’re trying to achieve in ways that you don’t value,” she warned, “you’re going to burn out.”

On the other hand, intense self-doubt can also limit advancement. After all, if you don’t think you’re good enough, you may not apply for job opportunities or leadership positions.

This mental burden can persist over years and even decades. A 2020 review of studies on imposter syndrome noted that “it would be reassuring to believe that imposter symptoms decline with age.” Unfortunately, several studies indicated that they do not.

How to Manage Imposter Syndrome

While it can be difficult to overcome imposter syndrome, there are ways to work through it and make it less pervasive or intense. Here are some tips from our experts:

• Prioritize your mental health. This can be difficult for some physicians, but don’t ignore symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout. Untreated mental health conditions cloud the ability to reflect on some of the existential questions that will help you navigate imposter syndrome, said Dr. Gold.
• Assess how often you need validation and why. Try to identify what you›re feeling, what needs aren›t being met, and how you can meet those needs. You can then consider where to get that validation either internally or by connecting with a colleague. Dr. McGrath encourages physicians to ask, “What does success look like for me?” and can you make success more personal and meaningful. It might sound shocking, but rather than an unattainable ideal, success should be something that feels good.
• Know the power of teamwork. As Dr. Parikh eventually realized, collaborative care is a common and beneficial part of medicine — not something that makes you a less-than physician. “There’s a lot of opportunity to crowdsource the medical decision-making process in ways that increase your own confidence as a doctor,” he said.
• Practice self-compassion. Critical voices in your head add to an already hard and stressful world. This is where self-compassion comes in. “We don’t have much control over medicine, but we have control over how medicine makes us feel,” Dr. Gold said. Imagine treating yourself how you would treat a friend.
• Consider a physician coach.  suggests that physician coaches can help lower rates of burnout and improve well-being, resilience, professional fulfillment, and self-worth. “Coaching looks into the future to help you envision what things would look like if you were feeling differently. It helps you explore what’s in your control and how you want to shape that,” said Dr. McGrath.
• Amplify the good. Apps and web-based tools can remind you to celebrate your own achievements. The “” exercise created by J. Bryan Sexton, PhD, at the Duke Center for Healthcare Safety & Quality for example, was documented in a . When healthcare workers reflected on three good things that happened each day for 2 weeks, they reported significant improvements in depression, burnout, and work-life balance.
• Do a values check. Dr. Gold often suggested that physicians with imposter syndrome ask themselves what they value, what medicine values, and how the two line up. Pausing to consider this can guide you toward useful strategies. If you value family life but feel like medicine doesn’t, for example, you might talk with a colleague who has navigated this conflict.

Dr. Gold added that reminding yourself of the range of options can be freeing. “There’s no ‘one career’ in medicine,” she said. “There are multiple ways to be happy in medicine; there are multiple ways to be happy outside of medicine. And you’re not a failure for the path you choose.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While TikTok overflows with images of influencers making “adrenal cocktails” to combat what they call adrenal fatigue, the Endocrine Society says “no scientific proof exists to support adrenal fatigue as a true medical condition.”

Even before influencers began touting it on social media, a 2016 systematic review concluded that there is “no substantiation that adrenal fatigue” is an actual medical condition. Therefore, adrenal fatigue is still a myth.

Lynette Nieman, MD, Senior Investigator and Chief of the Endocrinology Consultation Service at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, concurs.

“There is no scientific evidence that adrenal fatigue exists or causes [general] fatigue, depression, or the many common symptoms that are said to result from this condition,” she told this news organization via email.

Still, the term has gained currency among not only social media influencers who blame it for everything from cortisol surges to estrogen imbalances but also functional and integrative medical practitioners as an explanation for chronic dysfunction related to stress. 
 

Adrenal Fatigue, Burnout, or Adrenal Insufficiency?

Rather than “adrenal fatigue,” Marcelo Campos, MD, a primary care doctor at Atrius Health, said he prefers the medical term “burnout.”

Use of “burnout” shifts attention to the brain’s role in stress-related chronic dysfunction rather than the adrenal glands, said Dr. Campos, who also teaches at Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

More specifically still, the focuses might shift to the stress-response via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and its role in reducing levels of these cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.

He points out that part of the reason for the misuse of the term adrenal fatigue arises from the fact that burnout is often only associated with work stress.

“Recently, the ICD-11 [International Classification of Diseases-11] recognized burnout as a disease but focused only on work stress as a cause. The truth is that people can be burned out for many other reasons,” said Dr. Campos.

The Endocrine Society notes on their webpage dedicated to the topic that “adrenal fatigue” as a term, relates to long-term mental, emotional, or physical stress.

“The problem is not the adrenals — it is the exposure to stress in the brain. The brain — only one organ — is responsible for 40% of energy consumption in the body. As you can imagine, if you are under constant stress, you run out of gas very quickly and cannot function well,” he explained.

Adrenal fatigue theory suggests that, under stress, the adrenal glands produce too many short bursts of cortisol resulting in overall reduced cortisol levels and a feeling of being drained.

“As with many other psychiatric diseases, we do not have a way to measure biomarkers in the brain. The testing for cortisol does not work because it fluctuates too much from time to time. So, it is not reliable or reproducible,” Dr. Campos said. 

This leads to the ongoing question of the best way to test and diagnose adrenal fatigue, whether it should be via blood, urine and/or saliva. And even if that is determined, there are still questions about the best time to test, how often, what the normal ranges are and how reliable the tests are.

While adrenal fatigue is not a recognized condition, adrenal insufficiency is medically recognized, resulting from an inability of the adrenal glands to make the life-essential hormones aldosterone and/or cortisol, with symptoms that include fatigue, belly pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and joint aches.

“Adrenal cocktails are not an effective treatment for adrenal insufficiency because they do not replace the missing hormones,” Dr. Nieman stated, pointing out that anyone with symptoms of adrenal insufficiency needs to see an endocrinologist.

Pratibha Rao, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, and medical director of the Adrenal Center at Cleveland Clinic, agreed, advising that if people continue to feel exhausted beyond their normal exertion, then they should get checked for signs of adrenal insufficiency.

“In primary adrenal insufficiency, you can actually start seeing darkening of the gums and of the skin on the palms of the hands or the soles of your feet. Sometimes people can feel dizzy or experience some loss of consciousness,” she said. “If it’s sudden and severe, you may crave salt or have extreme heat or cold intolerance.”

Recognizing and Managing Patient Frustration

The lack of formal diagnostic criteria and medical evidence, however, doesn’t mean that such symptoms as fatigue and depression don’t present, often causing significant distress for patients. While the symptoms might not be associated with the adrenal glands, they still need addressing — but how that is done is, in essence, a bone of contention.

Dr. Rao empathizes with the situation that many people, often young women, find themselves in.

“Patients are frustrated. They’ve gone to multiple doctors across the country, and they feel convinced they have adrenal fatigue, but no medical doctor has endorsed it. They end up coming to us with a cry that has so often gone unanswered.”

This issue also highlights that there are millions of people experiencing mental, emotional, and physical distress of unknown cause who seek help, many of whom believe it is related to their adrenal gland function.

But rather than turning to a social media cure, Dr. Rao stresses that people would benefit more from paying greater attention to following a healthy lifestyle than regularly consuming sugar-rich drinks claimed to offer a solution. Adrenal cocktails are energy-rich, frothy blends of orange juice, coconut milk, cream of tartar, and Himalayan salt.

“We truly are what we eat, and we are what we think,” she noted.

The body is a miraculous machine, but “we forget that it does need maintenance,” Dr. Rao said. “Up to age 30, the body is so forgiving with drugs, alcohol, or whatever insult we do to it, but after the third decade, slowly every cell starts to degenerate instead of growing. We start to see the ill or beneficial effects of lifestyle habits.” 

“We insult the body, and then we say, ‘oh, I have fatigue’ and seek a quick fix,” she added. “Everyone wants instant gratification.”

Dr. Rao cautioned that adrenal cocktails could be dangerous for someone who has other medical conditions.

“If someone has kidney disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, for example, then adrenal cocktails are definitely not safe,” Dr. Rao said. “Loading up with potassium and sodium, which is found in high quantities in adrenal cocktails, will actually worsen any kidney damage, while consuming so much sugar will cause an unregulated rise in blood sugar and further damage in someone with diabetes.”

Dr. Rao also stressed that nonprofessional advice given on social media could take patient people down the wrong path with associated danger.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While TikTok overflows with images of influencers making “adrenal cocktails” to combat what they call adrenal fatigue, the Endocrine Society says “no scientific proof exists to support adrenal fatigue as a true medical condition.”

Even before influencers began touting it on social media, a 2016 systematic review concluded that there is “no substantiation that adrenal fatigue” is an actual medical condition. Therefore, adrenal fatigue is still a myth.

Lynette Nieman, MD, Senior Investigator and Chief of the Endocrinology Consultation Service at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, concurs.

“There is no scientific evidence that adrenal fatigue exists or causes [general] fatigue, depression, or the many common symptoms that are said to result from this condition,” she told this news organization via email.

Still, the term has gained currency among not only social media influencers who blame it for everything from cortisol surges to estrogen imbalances but also functional and integrative medical practitioners as an explanation for chronic dysfunction related to stress. 
 

Adrenal Fatigue, Burnout, or Adrenal Insufficiency?

Rather than “adrenal fatigue,” Marcelo Campos, MD, a primary care doctor at Atrius Health, said he prefers the medical term “burnout.”

Use of “burnout” shifts attention to the brain’s role in stress-related chronic dysfunction rather than the adrenal glands, said Dr. Campos, who also teaches at Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

More specifically still, the focuses might shift to the stress-response via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and its role in reducing levels of these cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.

He points out that part of the reason for the misuse of the term adrenal fatigue arises from the fact that burnout is often only associated with work stress.

“Recently, the ICD-11 [International Classification of Diseases-11] recognized burnout as a disease but focused only on work stress as a cause. The truth is that people can be burned out for many other reasons,” said Dr. Campos.

The Endocrine Society notes on their webpage dedicated to the topic that “adrenal fatigue” as a term, relates to long-term mental, emotional, or physical stress.

“The problem is not the adrenals — it is the exposure to stress in the brain. The brain — only one organ — is responsible for 40% of energy consumption in the body. As you can imagine, if you are under constant stress, you run out of gas very quickly and cannot function well,” he explained.

Adrenal fatigue theory suggests that, under stress, the adrenal glands produce too many short bursts of cortisol resulting in overall reduced cortisol levels and a feeling of being drained.

“As with many other psychiatric diseases, we do not have a way to measure biomarkers in the brain. The testing for cortisol does not work because it fluctuates too much from time to time. So, it is not reliable or reproducible,” Dr. Campos said. 

This leads to the ongoing question of the best way to test and diagnose adrenal fatigue, whether it should be via blood, urine and/or saliva. And even if that is determined, there are still questions about the best time to test, how often, what the normal ranges are and how reliable the tests are.

While adrenal fatigue is not a recognized condition, adrenal insufficiency is medically recognized, resulting from an inability of the adrenal glands to make the life-essential hormones aldosterone and/or cortisol, with symptoms that include fatigue, belly pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and joint aches.

“Adrenal cocktails are not an effective treatment for adrenal insufficiency because they do not replace the missing hormones,” Dr. Nieman stated, pointing out that anyone with symptoms of adrenal insufficiency needs to see an endocrinologist.

Pratibha Rao, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, and medical director of the Adrenal Center at Cleveland Clinic, agreed, advising that if people continue to feel exhausted beyond their normal exertion, then they should get checked for signs of adrenal insufficiency.

“In primary adrenal insufficiency, you can actually start seeing darkening of the gums and of the skin on the palms of the hands or the soles of your feet. Sometimes people can feel dizzy or experience some loss of consciousness,” she said. “If it’s sudden and severe, you may crave salt or have extreme heat or cold intolerance.”

Recognizing and Managing Patient Frustration

The lack of formal diagnostic criteria and medical evidence, however, doesn’t mean that such symptoms as fatigue and depression don’t present, often causing significant distress for patients. While the symptoms might not be associated with the adrenal glands, they still need addressing — but how that is done is, in essence, a bone of contention.

Dr. Rao empathizes with the situation that many people, often young women, find themselves in.

“Patients are frustrated. They’ve gone to multiple doctors across the country, and they feel convinced they have adrenal fatigue, but no medical doctor has endorsed it. They end up coming to us with a cry that has so often gone unanswered.”

This issue also highlights that there are millions of people experiencing mental, emotional, and physical distress of unknown cause who seek help, many of whom believe it is related to their adrenal gland function.

But rather than turning to a social media cure, Dr. Rao stresses that people would benefit more from paying greater attention to following a healthy lifestyle than regularly consuming sugar-rich drinks claimed to offer a solution. Adrenal cocktails are energy-rich, frothy blends of orange juice, coconut milk, cream of tartar, and Himalayan salt.

“We truly are what we eat, and we are what we think,” she noted.

The body is a miraculous machine, but “we forget that it does need maintenance,” Dr. Rao said. “Up to age 30, the body is so forgiving with drugs, alcohol, or whatever insult we do to it, but after the third decade, slowly every cell starts to degenerate instead of growing. We start to see the ill or beneficial effects of lifestyle habits.” 

“We insult the body, and then we say, ‘oh, I have fatigue’ and seek a quick fix,” she added. “Everyone wants instant gratification.”

Dr. Rao cautioned that adrenal cocktails could be dangerous for someone who has other medical conditions.

“If someone has kidney disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, for example, then adrenal cocktails are definitely not safe,” Dr. Rao said. “Loading up with potassium and sodium, which is found in high quantities in adrenal cocktails, will actually worsen any kidney damage, while consuming so much sugar will cause an unregulated rise in blood sugar and further damage in someone with diabetes.”

Dr. Rao also stressed that nonprofessional advice given on social media could take patient people down the wrong path with associated danger.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While TikTok overflows with images of influencers making “adrenal cocktails” to combat what they call adrenal fatigue, the Endocrine Society says “no scientific proof exists to support adrenal fatigue as a true medical condition.”

Even before influencers began touting it on social media, a 2016 systematic review concluded that there is “no substantiation that adrenal fatigue” is an actual medical condition. Therefore, adrenal fatigue is still a myth.

Lynette Nieman, MD, Senior Investigator and Chief of the Endocrinology Consultation Service at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, concurs.

“There is no scientific evidence that adrenal fatigue exists or causes [general] fatigue, depression, or the many common symptoms that are said to result from this condition,” she told this news organization via email.

Still, the term has gained currency among not only social media influencers who blame it for everything from cortisol surges to estrogen imbalances but also functional and integrative medical practitioners as an explanation for chronic dysfunction related to stress. 
 

Adrenal Fatigue, Burnout, or Adrenal Insufficiency?

Rather than “adrenal fatigue,” Marcelo Campos, MD, a primary care doctor at Atrius Health, said he prefers the medical term “burnout.”

Use of “burnout” shifts attention to the brain’s role in stress-related chronic dysfunction rather than the adrenal glands, said Dr. Campos, who also teaches at Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

More specifically still, the focuses might shift to the stress-response via the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and its role in reducing levels of these cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.

He points out that part of the reason for the misuse of the term adrenal fatigue arises from the fact that burnout is often only associated with work stress.

“Recently, the ICD-11 [International Classification of Diseases-11] recognized burnout as a disease but focused only on work stress as a cause. The truth is that people can be burned out for many other reasons,” said Dr. Campos.

The Endocrine Society notes on their webpage dedicated to the topic that “adrenal fatigue” as a term, relates to long-term mental, emotional, or physical stress.

“The problem is not the adrenals — it is the exposure to stress in the brain. The brain — only one organ — is responsible for 40% of energy consumption in the body. As you can imagine, if you are under constant stress, you run out of gas very quickly and cannot function well,” he explained.

Adrenal fatigue theory suggests that, under stress, the adrenal glands produce too many short bursts of cortisol resulting in overall reduced cortisol levels and a feeling of being drained.

“As with many other psychiatric diseases, we do not have a way to measure biomarkers in the brain. The testing for cortisol does not work because it fluctuates too much from time to time. So, it is not reliable or reproducible,” Dr. Campos said. 

This leads to the ongoing question of the best way to test and diagnose adrenal fatigue, whether it should be via blood, urine and/or saliva. And even if that is determined, there are still questions about the best time to test, how often, what the normal ranges are and how reliable the tests are.

While adrenal fatigue is not a recognized condition, adrenal insufficiency is medically recognized, resulting from an inability of the adrenal glands to make the life-essential hormones aldosterone and/or cortisol, with symptoms that include fatigue, belly pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and joint aches.

“Adrenal cocktails are not an effective treatment for adrenal insufficiency because they do not replace the missing hormones,” Dr. Nieman stated, pointing out that anyone with symptoms of adrenal insufficiency needs to see an endocrinologist.

Pratibha Rao, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, and medical director of the Adrenal Center at Cleveland Clinic, agreed, advising that if people continue to feel exhausted beyond their normal exertion, then they should get checked for signs of adrenal insufficiency.

“In primary adrenal insufficiency, you can actually start seeing darkening of the gums and of the skin on the palms of the hands or the soles of your feet. Sometimes people can feel dizzy or experience some loss of consciousness,” she said. “If it’s sudden and severe, you may crave salt or have extreme heat or cold intolerance.”

Recognizing and Managing Patient Frustration

The lack of formal diagnostic criteria and medical evidence, however, doesn’t mean that such symptoms as fatigue and depression don’t present, often causing significant distress for patients. While the symptoms might not be associated with the adrenal glands, they still need addressing — but how that is done is, in essence, a bone of contention.

Dr. Rao empathizes with the situation that many people, often young women, find themselves in.

“Patients are frustrated. They’ve gone to multiple doctors across the country, and they feel convinced they have adrenal fatigue, but no medical doctor has endorsed it. They end up coming to us with a cry that has so often gone unanswered.”

This issue also highlights that there are millions of people experiencing mental, emotional, and physical distress of unknown cause who seek help, many of whom believe it is related to their adrenal gland function.

But rather than turning to a social media cure, Dr. Rao stresses that people would benefit more from paying greater attention to following a healthy lifestyle than regularly consuming sugar-rich drinks claimed to offer a solution. Adrenal cocktails are energy-rich, frothy blends of orange juice, coconut milk, cream of tartar, and Himalayan salt.

“We truly are what we eat, and we are what we think,” she noted.

The body is a miraculous machine, but “we forget that it does need maintenance,” Dr. Rao said. “Up to age 30, the body is so forgiving with drugs, alcohol, or whatever insult we do to it, but after the third decade, slowly every cell starts to degenerate instead of growing. We start to see the ill or beneficial effects of lifestyle habits.” 

“We insult the body, and then we say, ‘oh, I have fatigue’ and seek a quick fix,” she added. “Everyone wants instant gratification.”

Dr. Rao cautioned that adrenal cocktails could be dangerous for someone who has other medical conditions.

“If someone has kidney disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, for example, then adrenal cocktails are definitely not safe,” Dr. Rao said. “Loading up with potassium and sodium, which is found in high quantities in adrenal cocktails, will actually worsen any kidney damage, while consuming so much sugar will cause an unregulated rise in blood sugar and further damage in someone with diabetes.”

Dr. Rao also stressed that nonprofessional advice given on social media could take patient people down the wrong path with associated danger.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study spanning 20 years helps nail down the timing of biomarker changes that occur in the period between normal cognition and a diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, something that hasn’t previously been extensively investigated in longitudinal studies.

By analyzing cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), as well as cognitive and brain imaging assessments conducted every few years for two decades, researchers were able to plot the course of changing levels of amyloid-beta 42 (Abeta42), phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in adults with Alzheimer’s disease and mark when those levels began to deviate from those of adults without Alzheimer’s disease.

Levels of Abeta42 in CSF and the ratio of Abeta42 to Abeta40 in people who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from those of peers who remained cognitively normal at 18 years and 14 years, respectively, before clinical signs of disease appeared.

The level of p-tau181 in CSF increased 11 years before disease onset, and NfL levels, a measure of neurodegeneration, increased 9 years before diagnosis.

These changes were followed by hippocampal atrophy and cognitive decline a few years later.

The results also show “an apparent accelerated change in concentrations of CSF biomarkers followed by a slowing of this change up to the time of diagnosis,” report the authors, led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, with the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Time Course of Biomarker Changes

Dr. Jia and colleagues conducted a nested case-control study within the China Cognition and Aging Study (COAST). They matched 648 adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease to 648 who remained cognitively normal. CSF, cognitive, and brain imaging assessments were performed every 2-3 years for a median of about 20 years.

Within both groups, men slightly outnumbered women. At baseline, CSF biomarker levels, cognitive scores, and hippocampal volumes were similar in the two groups. Adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease were more likely than their matched controls to be carriers of the APOE epsilon-4 allele (37% vs 20%).

In terms of CSF Abeta42, the level of this biomarker in those who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from the level in controls an estimated 18 years before clinical diagnosis. At that time, the level was lower by a mean 59.13 pg/mL in the Alzheimer’s disease group.

A difference in the ratio of CSF Abeta42 to Abeta40 between the two groups appeared an estimated 14 years before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (difference in mean values, −0.01 pg/mL).

Differences between the two groups in CSF p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were apparent roughly 11 and 10 years before diagnosis, respectively. At those times, the mean differences in p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were 7.10 pg/mL and 87.10 pg/mL, respectively.

In terms of NfL, a difference between the groups was observed 9 years before diagnosis, with its trajectory progressively deviating from the concentrations observed in cognitively normal groups at that time, to a final mean difference in NfL of 228.29 pg/mL. 

Bilateral hippocampal volume decreased with age in both groups. However, the decrease began to differ between the two groups 8 years before Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, at which time volume was lower by 358.94 mm³ in the Alzheimer’s disease group compared with the control group.

Average Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores in the Alzheimer’s disease group began to worsen compared with the control group at about 6 years before diagnosis.

As Alzheimer’s disease progressed, changes in CSF biomarkers increased before reaching a plateau. 
 

Important Contribution 

In a linked editorial, Richard Mayeux, MD, Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, said the importance of this work “cannot be overstated. Knowledge of the timing of these physiological events is critical to provide clinicians with useful starting points for prevention and therapeutic strategies.”

Dr. Mayeux said this “remarkable” longitudinal study spanning 2 decades “not only confirms the hypotheses of previous investigators but extends and validates the sequence of changes” in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Mayeux acknowledged that one might consider the finding in this study to be limited owing to the inclusion of only individuals of Han Chinese ancestry. 

However, longitudinal studies of plasma biomarkers in individuals of Asian, European, African, and Hispanic ancestry have shown similar trends in biomarker changes preceding the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, he noted. 

“Ethnic variation in these biomarkers is known, but that fact does not lessen the effect of the results reported. It merely highlights that similar studies must continue and must be inclusive of other groups,” Dr. Mayeux concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study spanning 20 years helps nail down the timing of biomarker changes that occur in the period between normal cognition and a diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, something that hasn’t previously been extensively investigated in longitudinal studies.

By analyzing cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), as well as cognitive and brain imaging assessments conducted every few years for two decades, researchers were able to plot the course of changing levels of amyloid-beta 42 (Abeta42), phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in adults with Alzheimer’s disease and mark when those levels began to deviate from those of adults without Alzheimer’s disease.

Levels of Abeta42 in CSF and the ratio of Abeta42 to Abeta40 in people who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from those of peers who remained cognitively normal at 18 years and 14 years, respectively, before clinical signs of disease appeared.

The level of p-tau181 in CSF increased 11 years before disease onset, and NfL levels, a measure of neurodegeneration, increased 9 years before diagnosis.

These changes were followed by hippocampal atrophy and cognitive decline a few years later.

The results also show “an apparent accelerated change in concentrations of CSF biomarkers followed by a slowing of this change up to the time of diagnosis,” report the authors, led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, with the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Time Course of Biomarker Changes

Dr. Jia and colleagues conducted a nested case-control study within the China Cognition and Aging Study (COAST). They matched 648 adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease to 648 who remained cognitively normal. CSF, cognitive, and brain imaging assessments were performed every 2-3 years for a median of about 20 years.

Within both groups, men slightly outnumbered women. At baseline, CSF biomarker levels, cognitive scores, and hippocampal volumes were similar in the two groups. Adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease were more likely than their matched controls to be carriers of the APOE epsilon-4 allele (37% vs 20%).

In terms of CSF Abeta42, the level of this biomarker in those who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from the level in controls an estimated 18 years before clinical diagnosis. At that time, the level was lower by a mean 59.13 pg/mL in the Alzheimer’s disease group.

A difference in the ratio of CSF Abeta42 to Abeta40 between the two groups appeared an estimated 14 years before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (difference in mean values, −0.01 pg/mL).

Differences between the two groups in CSF p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were apparent roughly 11 and 10 years before diagnosis, respectively. At those times, the mean differences in p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were 7.10 pg/mL and 87.10 pg/mL, respectively.

In terms of NfL, a difference between the groups was observed 9 years before diagnosis, with its trajectory progressively deviating from the concentrations observed in cognitively normal groups at that time, to a final mean difference in NfL of 228.29 pg/mL. 

Bilateral hippocampal volume decreased with age in both groups. However, the decrease began to differ between the two groups 8 years before Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, at which time volume was lower by 358.94 mm³ in the Alzheimer’s disease group compared with the control group.

Average Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores in the Alzheimer’s disease group began to worsen compared with the control group at about 6 years before diagnosis.

As Alzheimer’s disease progressed, changes in CSF biomarkers increased before reaching a plateau. 
 

Important Contribution 

In a linked editorial, Richard Mayeux, MD, Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, said the importance of this work “cannot be overstated. Knowledge of the timing of these physiological events is critical to provide clinicians with useful starting points for prevention and therapeutic strategies.”

Dr. Mayeux said this “remarkable” longitudinal study spanning 2 decades “not only confirms the hypotheses of previous investigators but extends and validates the sequence of changes” in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Mayeux acknowledged that one might consider the finding in this study to be limited owing to the inclusion of only individuals of Han Chinese ancestry. 

However, longitudinal studies of plasma biomarkers in individuals of Asian, European, African, and Hispanic ancestry have shown similar trends in biomarker changes preceding the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, he noted. 

“Ethnic variation in these biomarkers is known, but that fact does not lessen the effect of the results reported. It merely highlights that similar studies must continue and must be inclusive of other groups,” Dr. Mayeux concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study spanning 20 years helps nail down the timing of biomarker changes that occur in the period between normal cognition and a diagnosis of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, something that hasn’t previously been extensively investigated in longitudinal studies.

By analyzing cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), as well as cognitive and brain imaging assessments conducted every few years for two decades, researchers were able to plot the course of changing levels of amyloid-beta 42 (Abeta42), phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in adults with Alzheimer’s disease and mark when those levels began to deviate from those of adults without Alzheimer’s disease.

Levels of Abeta42 in CSF and the ratio of Abeta42 to Abeta40 in people who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from those of peers who remained cognitively normal at 18 years and 14 years, respectively, before clinical signs of disease appeared.

The level of p-tau181 in CSF increased 11 years before disease onset, and NfL levels, a measure of neurodegeneration, increased 9 years before diagnosis.

These changes were followed by hippocampal atrophy and cognitive decline a few years later.

The results also show “an apparent accelerated change in concentrations of CSF biomarkers followed by a slowing of this change up to the time of diagnosis,” report the authors, led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, with the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Time Course of Biomarker Changes

Dr. Jia and colleagues conducted a nested case-control study within the China Cognition and Aging Study (COAST). They matched 648 adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease to 648 who remained cognitively normal. CSF, cognitive, and brain imaging assessments were performed every 2-3 years for a median of about 20 years.

Within both groups, men slightly outnumbered women. At baseline, CSF biomarker levels, cognitive scores, and hippocampal volumes were similar in the two groups. Adults who developed Alzheimer’s disease were more likely than their matched controls to be carriers of the APOE epsilon-4 allele (37% vs 20%).

In terms of CSF Abeta42, the level of this biomarker in those who developed Alzheimer’s disease diverged from the level in controls an estimated 18 years before clinical diagnosis. At that time, the level was lower by a mean 59.13 pg/mL in the Alzheimer’s disease group.

A difference in the ratio of CSF Abeta42 to Abeta40 between the two groups appeared an estimated 14 years before the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (difference in mean values, −0.01 pg/mL).

Differences between the two groups in CSF p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were apparent roughly 11 and 10 years before diagnosis, respectively. At those times, the mean differences in p-tau181 and total tau concentrations were 7.10 pg/mL and 87.10 pg/mL, respectively.

In terms of NfL, a difference between the groups was observed 9 years before diagnosis, with its trajectory progressively deviating from the concentrations observed in cognitively normal groups at that time, to a final mean difference in NfL of 228.29 pg/mL. 

Bilateral hippocampal volume decreased with age in both groups. However, the decrease began to differ between the two groups 8 years before Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, at which time volume was lower by 358.94 mm³ in the Alzheimer’s disease group compared with the control group.

Average Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores in the Alzheimer’s disease group began to worsen compared with the control group at about 6 years before diagnosis.

As Alzheimer’s disease progressed, changes in CSF biomarkers increased before reaching a plateau. 
 

Important Contribution 

In a linked editorial, Richard Mayeux, MD, Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, said the importance of this work “cannot be overstated. Knowledge of the timing of these physiological events is critical to provide clinicians with useful starting points for prevention and therapeutic strategies.”

Dr. Mayeux said this “remarkable” longitudinal study spanning 2 decades “not only confirms the hypotheses of previous investigators but extends and validates the sequence of changes” in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Mayeux acknowledged that one might consider the finding in this study to be limited owing to the inclusion of only individuals of Han Chinese ancestry. 

However, longitudinal studies of plasma biomarkers in individuals of Asian, European, African, and Hispanic ancestry have shown similar trends in biomarker changes preceding the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, he noted. 

“Ethnic variation in these biomarkers is known, but that fact does not lessen the effect of the results reported. It merely highlights that similar studies must continue and must be inclusive of other groups,” Dr. Mayeux concluded.

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg, in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said. 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post-COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Cancer patients with behavioral health disorders are significantly less likely to undergo surgical resections, and more likely to experience poor outcomes when they do have surgery, based on data from a new study of nearly 700,000 individuals.

The reason for this association remains unclear, and highlights the need to address existing behavioral health disorders (BHDs), which can be exacerbated after a patient is diagnosed with cancer, wrote Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues. A cancer diagnosis can cause not only physical stress, but mental, emotional, social, and economic stress that can prompt a new BHD, cause relapse of a previous BHD, or exacerbate a current BHD, the researchers noted.
 

What is Known About BHDs and Cancer?

Although previous studies have shown a possible association between BHDs and increased cancer risk, as well as reduced compliance with care, the effect of BHDs on outcomes in cancer patients undergoing surgical resection has not been examined, wrote Dr. Pawlik and colleagues.

Previous research has focused on the impact of having a preexisting serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on cancer care.

A 2023 literature review of 27 studies published in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences showed that patients with preexisting severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) had greater cancer-related mortality. In that study, the researchers also found that patients with severe mental illness were more likely to have metastatic disease at diagnosis, but less likely to receive optimal treatments, than individuals without SMIs.

Many studies also have focused on patients developing mental health problems (including BHDs) after a cancer diagnosis, but the current study is the first known to examine outcomes in those with BHDs before cancer. 
 

Why Was It Important to Conduct This Study?

“BHDs are a diverse set of mental illnesses that affect an individual’s psychosocial wellbeing, potentially resulting in maladaptive behaviors,” Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. BHDs, which include substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders, are less common than anxiety/depression, but have an estimated prevalence of 1.3%-3.1% among adults in the United States, he said.

What Does the New Study Add?

In the new review by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Katayama ES. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Feb 29. doi: 2024. 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000954), BHDs were defined as substance abuse, eating disorders, or sleep disorders, which had not been the focus of previous studies. The researchers reviewed data from 694,836 adult patients with lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer between 2018-2021 using the Medicare Standard Analytic files. A total of 46,719 patients (6.7%) had at least one BHD.

Overall, patients with a BHD were significantly less likely than those without a BHD to undergo surgical resection (20.3% vs. 23.4%). Patients with a BHD also had significantly worse long-term postoperative survival than those without BHDs (median 37.1 months vs. 46.6 months) and significantly higher in-hospital costs ($17,432 vs. 16,159, P less than .001 for all).

Among patients who underwent cancer surgery, the odds of any complication were significantly higher for those with a BHD compared to those with no BHD (odds ratio 1.32), as were the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR 1.67) and 90-day readmission (OR 1.57).

Dr. Pawlik said he was surprised by several of the findings, including that 1 in 15 Medicare beneficiaries had a BHD diagnosis, “with male sex and minority racial status, as well as higher social vulnerability, being associated with a higher prevalence of BHD.”

Also, the independent association of having a BHD with 30%-50% higher odds of a complication, prolonged length of stay, and 90-day readmission was higher than Dr. Pawlik had anticipated.
 

Why Do Patients With BHDs Have Fewer Surgeries and Worse Outcomes?

The reasons for this association were likely multifactorial and may reflect the greater burden of medical comorbidity and chronic illness in many patients with BHDs because of maladaptive lifestyles or poor nutrition status, Dr. Pawlik said.

“Patients with BHDs also likely face barriers to accessing care, which was noted particularly among patients with BHDs who lived in socially vulnerable areas,” he said. BHD patients also were more likely to be treated at low-volume rather than high-volume hospitals, “which undoubtedly contributed in part to worse outcomes in this cohort of patients,” he added.
 

What Can Oncologists Do to Help?

The take-home message for clinicians is that BHDs are linked to worse surgical outcomes and higher health care costs in cancer patients, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview.

“Enhanced accessibility to behavioral healthcare, as well as comprehensive policy reform related to mental health services are needed to improve care of patients with BHDs,” he said. “For example, implementing psychiatry compensation programs may encourage practice in vulnerable areas,” he said.

Other strategies include a following a collaborative care model involving mental health professionals working in tandem with primary care and mid-level practitioners and increasing use and establishment of telehealth systems to improve patient access to BHD services, he said.
 

What Are the Limitations?

The study by Dr. Pawlik and colleagues was limited by several factors, including the lack of data on younger patients and the full range of BHDs, as well as underreporting of BHDs and the high copays for mental health care, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that concomitant BHDs are associated with worse cancer outcomes and higher in-hospital costs, and illustrate the need to screen for and target these conditions in cancer patients, the researchers concluded.

What Are the Next Steps for Research?

The current study involved Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, and more research is needed to investigate the impact of BHDs among younger cancer patients in whom the prevalence may be higher and the impact of BHDs may be different, Dr. Pawlik said in an interview. In addition, the analysis of BHDs as a composite of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders (because the numbers were too small to break out data for each disorder, separately) prevented investigation of potential differences and unique challenges faced by distinct subpopulations of BHD patients, he said.

“Future studies should examine the individual impact of substance abuse, eating disorders, and sleep disorders on access to surgery, as well as the potential different impact that each one of these different BHDs may have on postoperative outcomes,” Dr. Pawlik suggested.

The study was supported by The Ohio State University College of Medicine Roessler Summer Research Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE:

Scents that trigger specific, vivid autobiographical memories (AMs) could improve deficits in memory recall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests. Investigators found that odor cues may be a stronger tool than word cues for improving memory, which could help reduce MDD symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants included 32 individuals aged 18-55 years (mean age, 30 years; 26 females) with a diagnosis of MDD recruited from the community.
• Those with psychosis, bipolar I or II, neurological disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse were excluded.
• Participants were presented with a series of 12 words and 12 odors, such as cough syrup, tobacco ash, and Vicks VapoRub, and asked to recall a specific memory in response to each cue.
• AMs were rated in terms of vividness, frequency, and whether they were associated with positive or negative emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Although participants only guessed correct stimulus odors 30% of the time, they recalled more specific memories from odor cues than from word cues (68% vs 52%; P < .001).
• Odor-cued recall was more arousing and vivid (P < .001) than recall responses generated by word cues.
• Compared with the population mean for responses to word cues in healthy controls, study participants recalled fewer specific memories in response to words (P < .001), but the percentage of specific memories recalled in response to odor cues did not differ from the healthy control population mean.
• Investigators hoped to further their research by investigating the mechanisms underlying odor-cued AMs, particularly to test if the amygdala and hippocampus are activated during recall.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests the potential for increasing autobiographical memory specificity in individuals with MDD, with the future goal of reducing depression symptoms for this population and informing a better understanding of the neural mechanisms influencing odor-based AM recall,” the authors wrote. “We hope this initial study spurs larger studies in more diverse samples that include healthy control participants to further investigate and explain these associations.”

SOURCE:

Kymberly D. Young, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led the study, which was published online on February 13, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the lack of a healthy control group and the small sample size. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded internally by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania. No disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Scents that trigger specific, vivid autobiographical memories (AMs) could improve deficits in memory recall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests. Investigators found that odor cues may be a stronger tool than word cues for improving memory, which could help reduce MDD symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants included 32 individuals aged 18-55 years (mean age, 30 years; 26 females) with a diagnosis of MDD recruited from the community.
• Those with psychosis, bipolar I or II, neurological disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse were excluded.
• Participants were presented with a series of 12 words and 12 odors, such as cough syrup, tobacco ash, and Vicks VapoRub, and asked to recall a specific memory in response to each cue.
• AMs were rated in terms of vividness, frequency, and whether they were associated with positive or negative emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Although participants only guessed correct stimulus odors 30% of the time, they recalled more specific memories from odor cues than from word cues (68% vs 52%; P < .001).
• Odor-cued recall was more arousing and vivid (P < .001) than recall responses generated by word cues.
• Compared with the population mean for responses to word cues in healthy controls, study participants recalled fewer specific memories in response to words (P < .001), but the percentage of specific memories recalled in response to odor cues did not differ from the healthy control population mean.
• Investigators hoped to further their research by investigating the mechanisms underlying odor-cued AMs, particularly to test if the amygdala and hippocampus are activated during recall.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests the potential for increasing autobiographical memory specificity in individuals with MDD, with the future goal of reducing depression symptoms for this population and informing a better understanding of the neural mechanisms influencing odor-based AM recall,” the authors wrote. “We hope this initial study spurs larger studies in more diverse samples that include healthy control participants to further investigate and explain these associations.”

SOURCE:

Kymberly D. Young, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led the study, which was published online on February 13, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the lack of a healthy control group and the small sample size. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded internally by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania. No disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Scents that trigger specific, vivid autobiographical memories (AMs) could improve deficits in memory recall in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests. Investigators found that odor cues may be a stronger tool than word cues for improving memory, which could help reduce MDD symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants included 32 individuals aged 18-55 years (mean age, 30 years; 26 females) with a diagnosis of MDD recruited from the community.
• Those with psychosis, bipolar I or II, neurological disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse were excluded.
• Participants were presented with a series of 12 words and 12 odors, such as cough syrup, tobacco ash, and Vicks VapoRub, and asked to recall a specific memory in response to each cue.
• AMs were rated in terms of vividness, frequency, and whether they were associated with positive or negative emotions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Although participants only guessed correct stimulus odors 30% of the time, they recalled more specific memories from odor cues than from word cues (68% vs 52%; P < .001).
• Odor-cued recall was more arousing and vivid (P < .001) than recall responses generated by word cues.
• Compared with the population mean for responses to word cues in healthy controls, study participants recalled fewer specific memories in response to words (P < .001), but the percentage of specific memories recalled in response to odor cues did not differ from the healthy control population mean.
• Investigators hoped to further their research by investigating the mechanisms underlying odor-cued AMs, particularly to test if the amygdala and hippocampus are activated during recall.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests the potential for increasing autobiographical memory specificity in individuals with MDD, with the future goal of reducing depression symptoms for this population and informing a better understanding of the neural mechanisms influencing odor-based AM recall,” the authors wrote. “We hope this initial study spurs larger studies in more diverse samples that include healthy control participants to further investigate and explain these associations.”

SOURCE:

Kymberly D. Young, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, led the study, which was published online on February 13, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the lack of a healthy control group and the small sample size. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded internally by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania. No disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 1 in 100 adolescents ages 12-17 years in the United States have an opioid use disorder (OUD). But fewer than 5% of adolescents with OUD get buprenorphine or naltrexone, though the treatments are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), new data show.

Meanwhile, adolescent drug overdose deaths more than doubled between 2019 and 2021, with most involving opioids.

Scott E. Hadland, MD, MPH, with the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Mass General for Children in Boston, and colleagues detailed the extent of the treatment gap and barriers to prescribing and caring for youth with OUD in primary care in a research letter published February 26 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Hadland’s team mailed 1,681 US pediatricians a survey and the response rate was 43.0%. Researchers included in the sample 474 primary care pediatricians who care for adolescents.
 

Who Should Treat OUD?

Most respondents (average age, 49.5; 74.0% female) agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to identify substance use disorders (93.9%) and refer patients to treatment (97.4%).

Fewer agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to treat substance use disorders (20.3%) or prescribe medications (12.4%). Fewer than half of the respondents said they felt prepared or very prepared to counsel adolescents on opioid use (48.3%) compared with those comfortable counseling on alcohol (87.1%), cannabis (81.7%), and e-cigarette use (80.1%; P < .001).

Pediatricians were less likely to provide counseling (63.0%) and more likely to refer patients to care off-site (71.8%) for opioid use than for alcohol (87.7% and 51.7%); cannabis (88.9% and 45.4%); or e-cigarette use (91.6% and 26.5%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).
 

Training Lacking in Residency Programs

“These results reveal an opportunity for greater workforce training in line with a 2019 survey showing fewer than 1 in 3 US pediatric residency programs included education on prescribing OUD medications,” the authors wrote. Training focused on treating OUD in primary care, including prescribing medications and addressing possible misperceptions, may be needed,” they noted.

The survey predated the elimination in 2023 of the federal buprenorphine waiver requirement, which made prescribing buprenorphine easier, so these results do not reflect any changes from that elimination, they wrote.

Sharon Levy, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of this study, said more education on addiction medicine is needed for general pediatricians.

She said it’s time to push beyond the current framework of Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), because that doesn’t include “prescribing medications to manage withdrawal or suppress cravings or the use of lab testing, both of which could be accomplished in primary care.”

Dr. Levy said she considers substance use disorders the same way she considers other chronic conditions: Most patients can be treated in primary care. “Specialty care and higher levels of care need to be available for patients who are most complicated and/or having a flare of their condition.”

“In my opinion, most teens with opioid use disorder can and should be treated in primary care. I worry about referring teens with opioid use disorder to get medication somewhere else because there are few places that deliver this service to this age group. Additionally, teens and families are not always willing to pursue a referral, and many will get lost along the way.”
 

Promising Models

At Boston Children’s, she said, the Division of Addiction Medicine has created a consultation call line that primary care providers can call for help with any questions about teen substance use.

After running the consultation for about a year, she said, the program wanted to add ways to help patients directly and hired and trained social workers who can see pediatric patients with substance use problems for counseling via telemedicine. “The program also now supports group therapy for pediatric patients and parents, so that primary care providers can refer patients directly to group therapy,” Dr. Levy said.

The growth of telehealth since the pandemic may allow for new models of care.

“For example, now our Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program at Boston Children’s Hospital can provide services, including medication induction and follow-up, virtually,” Dr. Levy said. “This allows us to treat young people anywhere in the state. There have been instances in which a primary care provider referred us patients with OUD and then partnered with us, including performing physicals for teens who could not get to Boston to see us in person. At the end of the day, the more models we can come up with the better.”

Dr. Hadland reported honoraria from the AAP outside the submitted work. Two coauthors reported receiving salary support from the AAP during the conduct of the study. A coauthor reported serving as the chair of the AAP Committee on Substance Use and Prevention outside the submitted work. This work was supported by a grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation via the AAP. Dr. Sharon Levy’s husband, Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, is director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

An estimated 1 in 100 adolescents ages 12-17 years in the United States have an opioid use disorder (OUD). But fewer than 5% of adolescents with OUD get buprenorphine or naltrexone, though the treatments are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), new data show.

Meanwhile, adolescent drug overdose deaths more than doubled between 2019 and 2021, with most involving opioids.

Scott E. Hadland, MD, MPH, with the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Mass General for Children in Boston, and colleagues detailed the extent of the treatment gap and barriers to prescribing and caring for youth with OUD in primary care in a research letter published February 26 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Hadland’s team mailed 1,681 US pediatricians a survey and the response rate was 43.0%. Researchers included in the sample 474 primary care pediatricians who care for adolescents.
 

Who Should Treat OUD?

Most respondents (average age, 49.5; 74.0% female) agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to identify substance use disorders (93.9%) and refer patients to treatment (97.4%).

Fewer agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to treat substance use disorders (20.3%) or prescribe medications (12.4%). Fewer than half of the respondents said they felt prepared or very prepared to counsel adolescents on opioid use (48.3%) compared with those comfortable counseling on alcohol (87.1%), cannabis (81.7%), and e-cigarette use (80.1%; P < .001).

Pediatricians were less likely to provide counseling (63.0%) and more likely to refer patients to care off-site (71.8%) for opioid use than for alcohol (87.7% and 51.7%); cannabis (88.9% and 45.4%); or e-cigarette use (91.6% and 26.5%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).
 

Training Lacking in Residency Programs

“These results reveal an opportunity for greater workforce training in line with a 2019 survey showing fewer than 1 in 3 US pediatric residency programs included education on prescribing OUD medications,” the authors wrote. Training focused on treating OUD in primary care, including prescribing medications and addressing possible misperceptions, may be needed,” they noted.

The survey predated the elimination in 2023 of the federal buprenorphine waiver requirement, which made prescribing buprenorphine easier, so these results do not reflect any changes from that elimination, they wrote.

Sharon Levy, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of this study, said more education on addiction medicine is needed for general pediatricians.

She said it’s time to push beyond the current framework of Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), because that doesn’t include “prescribing medications to manage withdrawal or suppress cravings or the use of lab testing, both of which could be accomplished in primary care.”

Dr. Levy said she considers substance use disorders the same way she considers other chronic conditions: Most patients can be treated in primary care. “Specialty care and higher levels of care need to be available for patients who are most complicated and/or having a flare of their condition.”

“In my opinion, most teens with opioid use disorder can and should be treated in primary care. I worry about referring teens with opioid use disorder to get medication somewhere else because there are few places that deliver this service to this age group. Additionally, teens and families are not always willing to pursue a referral, and many will get lost along the way.”
 

Promising Models

At Boston Children’s, she said, the Division of Addiction Medicine has created a consultation call line that primary care providers can call for help with any questions about teen substance use.

After running the consultation for about a year, she said, the program wanted to add ways to help patients directly and hired and trained social workers who can see pediatric patients with substance use problems for counseling via telemedicine. “The program also now supports group therapy for pediatric patients and parents, so that primary care providers can refer patients directly to group therapy,” Dr. Levy said.

The growth of telehealth since the pandemic may allow for new models of care.

“For example, now our Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program at Boston Children’s Hospital can provide services, including medication induction and follow-up, virtually,” Dr. Levy said. “This allows us to treat young people anywhere in the state. There have been instances in which a primary care provider referred us patients with OUD and then partnered with us, including performing physicals for teens who could not get to Boston to see us in person. At the end of the day, the more models we can come up with the better.”

Dr. Hadland reported honoraria from the AAP outside the submitted work. Two coauthors reported receiving salary support from the AAP during the conduct of the study. A coauthor reported serving as the chair of the AAP Committee on Substance Use and Prevention outside the submitted work. This work was supported by a grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation via the AAP. Dr. Sharon Levy’s husband, Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, is director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

An estimated 1 in 100 adolescents ages 12-17 years in the United States have an opioid use disorder (OUD). But fewer than 5% of adolescents with OUD get buprenorphine or naltrexone, though the treatments are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), new data show.

Meanwhile, adolescent drug overdose deaths more than doubled between 2019 and 2021, with most involving opioids.

Scott E. Hadland, MD, MPH, with the Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine at Mass General for Children in Boston, and colleagues detailed the extent of the treatment gap and barriers to prescribing and caring for youth with OUD in primary care in a research letter published February 26 in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Hadland’s team mailed 1,681 US pediatricians a survey and the response rate was 43.0%. Researchers included in the sample 474 primary care pediatricians who care for adolescents.
 

Who Should Treat OUD?

Most respondents (average age, 49.5; 74.0% female) agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to identify substance use disorders (93.9%) and refer patients to treatment (97.4%).

Fewer agreed or strongly agreed that it is their responsibility to treat substance use disorders (20.3%) or prescribe medications (12.4%). Fewer than half of the respondents said they felt prepared or very prepared to counsel adolescents on opioid use (48.3%) compared with those comfortable counseling on alcohol (87.1%), cannabis (81.7%), and e-cigarette use (80.1%; P < .001).

Pediatricians were less likely to provide counseling (63.0%) and more likely to refer patients to care off-site (71.8%) for opioid use than for alcohol (87.7% and 51.7%); cannabis (88.9% and 45.4%); or e-cigarette use (91.6% and 26.5%) (P < .001 for all comparisons).
 

Training Lacking in Residency Programs

“These results reveal an opportunity for greater workforce training in line with a 2019 survey showing fewer than 1 in 3 US pediatric residency programs included education on prescribing OUD medications,” the authors wrote. Training focused on treating OUD in primary care, including prescribing medications and addressing possible misperceptions, may be needed,” they noted.

The survey predated the elimination in 2023 of the federal buprenorphine waiver requirement, which made prescribing buprenorphine easier, so these results do not reflect any changes from that elimination, they wrote.

Sharon Levy, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Addiction Medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of this study, said more education on addiction medicine is needed for general pediatricians.

She said it’s time to push beyond the current framework of Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), because that doesn’t include “prescribing medications to manage withdrawal or suppress cravings or the use of lab testing, both of which could be accomplished in primary care.”

Dr. Levy said she considers substance use disorders the same way she considers other chronic conditions: Most patients can be treated in primary care. “Specialty care and higher levels of care need to be available for patients who are most complicated and/or having a flare of their condition.”

“In my opinion, most teens with opioid use disorder can and should be treated in primary care. I worry about referring teens with opioid use disorder to get medication somewhere else because there are few places that deliver this service to this age group. Additionally, teens and families are not always willing to pursue a referral, and many will get lost along the way.”
 

Promising Models

At Boston Children’s, she said, the Division of Addiction Medicine has created a consultation call line that primary care providers can call for help with any questions about teen substance use.

After running the consultation for about a year, she said, the program wanted to add ways to help patients directly and hired and trained social workers who can see pediatric patients with substance use problems for counseling via telemedicine. “The program also now supports group therapy for pediatric patients and parents, so that primary care providers can refer patients directly to group therapy,” Dr. Levy said.

The growth of telehealth since the pandemic may allow for new models of care.

“For example, now our Adolescent Substance Use and Addiction Program at Boston Children’s Hospital can provide services, including medication induction and follow-up, virtually,” Dr. Levy said. “This allows us to treat young people anywhere in the state. There have been instances in which a primary care provider referred us patients with OUD and then partnered with us, including performing physicals for teens who could not get to Boston to see us in person. At the end of the day, the more models we can come up with the better.”

Dr. Hadland reported honoraria from the AAP outside the submitted work. Two coauthors reported receiving salary support from the AAP during the conduct of the study. A coauthor reported serving as the chair of the AAP Committee on Substance Use and Prevention outside the submitted work. This work was supported by a grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation via the AAP. Dr. Sharon Levy’s husband, Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, is director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.