Federal Practitioner

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ten years ago, Clare Gerada, FRCGP, an advocate for physician well-being and today president of the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners, made a prediction to the audience at the International Conference on Physician Health.

“We have seen a massive increase in eating disorders [among doctors],” she said. “I’m not sure anybody is quite aware of the tsunami of eating disorders,” she believed would soon strike predominantly female physicians.

That was 2014. Did the tsunami hit?

Quite possibly. Data are limited on the prevalence of eating disorders (EDs) among healthcare workers, but studies do exist. A 2019 global review and meta-analysis determined “the summary prevalence of eating disorder (ED) risk among medical students was 10.4%.”

A 2022 update of that review boosted the estimate to 17.35%.

Tsunami or not, that’s nearly double the 9% rate within the US general public (from a 2020 report from STRIPED and the Academy of Eating Disorders). And while the following stat isn’t an indicator of EDs per se, 19% of doctors admit to unhealthy eating habits, according to a recent Medscape Medical News physician survey.

To her credit, Dr. Gerada, awarded a damehood in 2020, was in a position to know what was coming. Her statement was informed by research showing an increasing number of young doctors seeking treatment for mental health issues, including EDs, through the NHS Practitioner Health program, a mental health service she established in 2008.

So ... what puts doctors at such a high risk for EDs?

Be Careful of ‘Overlap Traits’

As with many mental health issues, EDs have no single cause. Researchers believe they stem from a complex interaction of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. But the medical field should take note: Some personality traits commonly associated with EDs are often shared by successful physicians.

“I think some of the overlap traits would be being highly driven, goal-oriented and self-critical,” said Lesley Williams, MD, a family medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “A lot of those traits can make you a very successful physician and physician-in-training but could also potentially spill over into body image and rigidity around food.”

Of course, we want physicians to strive for excellence, and the majority of diligent, driven doctors will not develop an ED.

But when pushed too far, those admirable qualities can easily become perfectionism — which has long been recognized as a risk factor for EDs, an association supported by decades of research.

Medical School: Where EDs Begin and Little Education About Them Happens

“I think medicine in general attracts people that often share similar characteristics to those who struggle with EDs — high-achieving, hardworking perfectionists who put a lot of pressure on themselves,” said Elizabeth McNaught, MD, a general practitioner and medical director at Family Mental Wealth.

Diagnosed with an ED at 14, Dr. McNaught has experienced this firsthand and shared her story in a 2020 memoir, Life Hurts: A Doctor’s Personal Journey Through Anorexia.

Competitive, high-stress environments can also be a trigger, Dr. McNaught explained. “The pressure of medical school,” for example, “can perpetuate an eating disorder if that’s something that you’re struggling with,” she said.

Pressure to perform may not be the only problem. Medical students are taught to view weight as a key indicator of health. Multiple studies suggested that not only does weight stigma exist in healthcare but also it has increased over time and negatively affects patients’ psychological well-being and physical health.

There is far less public discourse about how weight stigma can be harmful to medical students and physicians themselves. Dr. Williams believed the weight-centric paradigm was key.

“For so long, we believed that health presents itself within these confines on a BMI chart and anything outside of that is unhealthy and must be fixed,” she said. “I can say from having gone through medical education, having that continual messaging does make someone feel that if I myself am not within those confines, then I need to do something to fix that immediately if I’m going to continue to care for patients.”

In general, Dr. Williams, and Dr. McNaught agreed that medical training around EDs is lacking, producing doctors who are ill-equipped to diagnose, treat, or even discuss them with patients. Dr. Williams recalled only one lecture on the topic in med school.

“And yet, anorexia carries the second highest death rate of all mental illnesses after opioid-use disorders,” she said, “so it’s astonishing that that just wasn’t included.”

MDs Hiding Mental Health Issues

Claire Anderson, MD (a pseudonym), emphatically stated she would never tell anyone at the hospital where she works in the emergency department that she has an ED.

“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about mental health, and I never want people to doubt my ability to care for people,” Dr. Anderson said. “There’s so much stigma around eating disorders, and I also feel like once it’s out there, I can’t take it back, and I don’t want to feel like people are watching me.”

Melissa Klein, PhD, a clinical psychologist specializing in EDs, has more than 25 years of experience working the inpatient ED unit at New York Presbyterian. Having treated medical professionals, Dr. Klein said they have legitimate concerns about revealing their struggles.

“Sometimes, they do get reported to higher ups — the boards,” Dr. Klein said, “and they’re told that they have to get help in order for them to continue to work in their profession. I think people might be scared to ask for help because of that reason.”

Doctors Often Ignore EDs or Teach ‘Bad Habits’

Dr. Anderson firmly believed that if her early treatment from doctors had been better, she might not be struggling so much today.

The first time Dr. Anderson’s mother brought up her daughter’s sudden weight loss at 14, their family doctor conferred with a chart and said there was no reason to worry; Dr. Anderson’s weight was “normal.” “I was eating like 500 calories a day and swimming for 3 hours, and [by saying that], they assured me I was fine,” she recalls.

At 15, when Dr. Anderson went in for an initial assessment for an ED, she thought she’d be connected with a nutritionist and sent home. “I didn’t have a lot of classic thoughts of wanting to be thin or wanting to lose weight,” she said.

Instead, Dr. Anderson was sent to inpatient care, which she credits with escalating her ED. “I picked up on a lot of really bad habits when I went there — I sort of learned how to have an eating disorder,” she said. “When I left, it was very different than when I went in, which is kind of sad.”

Throughout high school, Dr. Anderson went in and out of so many hospitals and treatment programs that she’s lost track of them. Then, in 2008, she left formal treatment altogether. “I had been really angry with the treatment programs for trying to fit me into their box with a rigid schedule of inpatient and outpatient care,” she recalled. “I didn’t want to live in that world anymore.”

After working with a new psychiatrist, Dr. Anderson’s situation improved until a particularly stressful second year of residency. “That’s when I just tanked,” she said. “Residency, and especially being on my own and with COVID, things have not been great for me.”

Dr. Anderson now sees an eating disorder specialist, but she pays for this out-of-pocket. “I have terrible insurance,” she said with a laugh, aware of that irony.

If You Are Struggling, Don’t Be Ashamed

Some physicians who’ve experienced EDs firsthand are working to improve training on diagnosing and treating the conditions. Dr. McNaught has developed and launched a new eLearning program for healthcare workers on how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of an ED and provide support.

“It’s not only so they can recognize it in their patients but also if colleagues and family and friends are struggling,” she said.

In 2021, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) approved the APA Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders, which aims to improve patient care and treatment outcomes.

But Dr. Klein is concerned that increased stress since the COVID-19 pandemic may be putting healthcare workers at even greater risk.

“When people are under stress or when they feel like there are things in their life that maybe they can’t control, sometimes turning to an eating disorder is a way to cope,” she said, “In that sense, the stress on medical professionals is something that could lead to eating disorder behaviors.”

Dr. Klein’s message to healthcare workers: Don’t be ashamed. She described an ED as “a monster that takes over your brain. Once it starts, it’s very hard to turn it around on your own. So, I hope anyone who is suffering, in whatever field they’re in, that they are able to ask for help.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel-aspirin given within 72 hours of a mild ischemic stroke or a high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) shows a greater risk reduction for new stroke than aspirin alone, although with a higher bleeding risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INSPIRES, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involved patients with mild ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA of presumed atherosclerotic cause who had not undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
• A total of 6100 patients were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or matching clopidogrel placebo plus aspirin within 72 hours after symptom onset.
• The occurrence of any new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) within 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome.
• The primary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding, also assessed within 90 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 24 hours of symptom onset, 12.8% of patients were assigned to each treatment group, and the remaining 87.2% were assigned within the time window of 24-72 hours.
• (7.3% vs 9.2%; marginal estimated hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P =.008).
• The risk of a composite cardiovascular event and ischemic stroke were also 20%-25% lower with aspirin-clopidogrel combo vs aspirin alone.
• Moderate to severe bleeding was low in both groups (<1%), but the risk was double in patients who received DAPT vs aspirin alone (HR, 2.08; P =.03).

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Anthony S. Kim, MD from the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, commented, “The current trial provides evidence to support expanding the time window for dual antiplatelet therapy to 72 hours.” He also warned against administering DAPT to “patients with heightened bleeding risks, such as those with a history of cerebral or systemic hemorrhage.”

SOURCE:

Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, who held positions in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, and several other institutions, was the corresponding author of this study. This study was published online December 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

• Patients with stroke of presumed cardioembolic origin, those with moderate or severe stroke, and those who had undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy were excluded from this study.
• Of the enrolled participants, 98.5% belonged to the Han Chinese ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key R&D Program of China, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or contracts or serving as consultants in various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel-aspirin given within 72 hours of a mild ischemic stroke or a high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) shows a greater risk reduction for new stroke than aspirin alone, although with a higher bleeding risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INSPIRES, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involved patients with mild ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA of presumed atherosclerotic cause who had not undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
• A total of 6100 patients were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or matching clopidogrel placebo plus aspirin within 72 hours after symptom onset.
• The occurrence of any new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) within 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome.
• The primary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding, also assessed within 90 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 24 hours of symptom onset, 12.8% of patients were assigned to each treatment group, and the remaining 87.2% were assigned within the time window of 24-72 hours.
• (7.3% vs 9.2%; marginal estimated hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P =.008).
• The risk of a composite cardiovascular event and ischemic stroke were also 20%-25% lower with aspirin-clopidogrel combo vs aspirin alone.
• Moderate to severe bleeding was low in both groups (<1%), but the risk was double in patients who received DAPT vs aspirin alone (HR, 2.08; P =.03).

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Anthony S. Kim, MD from the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, commented, “The current trial provides evidence to support expanding the time window for dual antiplatelet therapy to 72 hours.” He also warned against administering DAPT to “patients with heightened bleeding risks, such as those with a history of cerebral or systemic hemorrhage.”

SOURCE:

Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, who held positions in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, and several other institutions, was the corresponding author of this study. This study was published online December 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

• Patients with stroke of presumed cardioembolic origin, those with moderate or severe stroke, and those who had undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy were excluded from this study.
• Of the enrolled participants, 98.5% belonged to the Han Chinese ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key R&D Program of China, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or contracts or serving as consultants in various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel-aspirin given within 72 hours of a mild ischemic stroke or a high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) shows a greater risk reduction for new stroke than aspirin alone, although with a higher bleeding risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INSPIRES, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involved patients with mild ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA of presumed atherosclerotic cause who had not undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
• A total of 6100 patients were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or matching clopidogrel placebo plus aspirin within 72 hours after symptom onset.
• The occurrence of any new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) within 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome.
• The primary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding, also assessed within 90 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 24 hours of symptom onset, 12.8% of patients were assigned to each treatment group, and the remaining 87.2% were assigned within the time window of 24-72 hours.
• (7.3% vs 9.2%; marginal estimated hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P =.008).
• The risk of a composite cardiovascular event and ischemic stroke were also 20%-25% lower with aspirin-clopidogrel combo vs aspirin alone.
• Moderate to severe bleeding was low in both groups (<1%), but the risk was double in patients who received DAPT vs aspirin alone (HR, 2.08; P =.03).

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Anthony S. Kim, MD from the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, commented, “The current trial provides evidence to support expanding the time window for dual antiplatelet therapy to 72 hours.” He also warned against administering DAPT to “patients with heightened bleeding risks, such as those with a history of cerebral or systemic hemorrhage.”

SOURCE:

Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, who held positions in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, and several other institutions, was the corresponding author of this study. This study was published online December 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

• Patients with stroke of presumed cardioembolic origin, those with moderate or severe stroke, and those who had undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy were excluded from this study.
• Of the enrolled participants, 98.5% belonged to the Han Chinese ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key R&D Program of China, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or contracts or serving as consultants in various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.