Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Medical professionals are well aware that civil liability (malpractice) may incur when a patient is harmed because of carelessness (negligence). Recent criminal charges against physicians and a nurse, however, have called medical professionals’ attention to the fact that they also may face criminal charges for inappropriate practice.

We cite 2 cases in which criminal liability resulted from bad medical practice. In both instances, there was considerable concern among medical professionals that criminal charges for making a mistake would make it difficult to practice without fear of criminal charges. One concern is that criminal charges could drive good people out of the profession or make them too cautious.¹

We look more closely at those 2 cases in which criminal liability was imposed. These cases are outliers. Relatively few criminal cases against medical professionals are based on the quality of care. (There are, however, more criminal charges related to fraudulent billing and other insurance fraud, kickbacks, Medicare and Medicaid abuse, and the like.²) At the same time, the criminal law does not stop at the front door of a clinic or hospital.³ When medical professionals engage in seriously inappropriate health care conduct that directly harms someone, criminal liability may result.⁴

Anatomy of a crime

Crimes generally require a specific mental state (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). The law specifies the mental state required for conviction. It can range from premeditation—once commonly called “malice aforethought”—to negligence. The mens rea requirement is an essential element of the crime—as we will see in the discussion of the prescription drug cases. A few offenses do not require even negligence, but overwhelmingly, crimes require something more than simple negligence.⁵

The act requirement is generally obvious, such as firing a gun, driving while intoxicated, or recklessly giving inappropriate medication to a patient. It may include “attempts,” crimes where an act was not completed. For example, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit do not require a completed offense, only intent plus overt acts toward carrying out the crime. Similarly, the wrongful act usually has to produce some harm, but again there are exceptions (attempts). To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must prove all of the elements of the crime, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.⁶

With this general background, we turn to the first case, in which the charge was a form of homicide. Please note that the following case description was derived from news descriptions of the case, because juries do not publish opinions concerning their conclusions and court documents are unavailable. The public reports therefore may contain factual gaps and errors.

CASE 1 Patient dies after nurse administers wrong drug

RaDonda Vaught, a 38-year-old experienced registered nurse employed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) in the intensive care unit (ICU), was providing care for a 76-year-old patient who was admitted to VUMC’s ICU in December 2017 in association with a brain injury. The brain injury involved a fall with resultant subdural hematoma. In preparation for a positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the patient’s injury, the physician team prescribed the sedative Versed (midazolam) because of the patient’s claustrophobia. During the course of treatment, Ms. Vaught inadvertently administered the wrong drug, a fatal dose of the muscle relaxant vecuronium, to the patient, which resulted in the patient being unable to breathe. Apparently, Ms. Vaught had been unable to find the midazolam and disengaged a safeguard, proceeding into override mode, and thus vecuronium was dispensed. By the time the error was noticed, the patient was already in cardiac arrest with resultant brain damage (partial brain death). The patient died soon thereafter.

How this medication error occurred

The medication error occurred when Ms. Vaught overrode a computer in the medical system when she could not find the “Versed” entry and typed in “VE,” which was the abbreviation for vecuronium. The prosecutors in the case stated that she failed to distinguish that vecuronium is dispensed as a powder and Versed as a liquid formula. The vecuronium has a red cap, which warns that it is a paralyzing agent. Ms. Vaught ignored these red flags, according to the prosecutors. Furthermore, the lawsuit filing documented her discussion that she was “distracted with something” at the time and admitted to overriding the medication warning.

Continue to: The charges in this case...

The charges revolved around “criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult,” the most notable charge being criminally negligent homicide. Potential consequences were up to an 8 years’ prison sentence.⁷

Furthermore, the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Vaught’s license in July 2021.⁸ The Board also reportedly fined her $3,000.⁹

The criminal proceedings were filed in Davidson County Criminal Court, with Judge Jennifer Smith presiding. Ms. Vaught repeatedly manifested remorse for the event. The patient’s family, including her son Michael and her daughters-in-law, provided tearful testimonies at the hearing. Ms. Vaught repeatedly cried during the testimonies. The nurse did not provide an apology, according to one daughter-in-law. The news media reported that the family did not want jail time for Ms. Vaught.⁷ Nurses across the country were “jolted,” as expressed by the news media.¹⁰

Why the controversy?

The entire issue of medical errors continues to be discussed among both the medical and the legal professions. To have a nursing personnel held to the level of criminal liability is unusual.

It was clear that Ms. Vaught took responsibility for her actions, and neither the prosecutors nor defendant attorneys sensed any evidence of malice on her part. On the other hand, there was enough evidence and concern for District Attorney Glenn Funk to proceed with prosecution-related action. Ms. Vaught was facing years in prison if convicted.

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In March 2022, the jury convicted Ms. Vaught of criminally negligent homicide—but not of reckless homicide, a more serious offense.

Judge Smith granted a judicial diversion, that is, the conviction would be expunged from the record if Ms. Vaught completed a 3-year probation. Judge Smith noted the “credible remorse expressed by Nurse Vaught” and went on to state, “this is a terrible, terrible, mistake and there have been consequences to the defendant.” In the courtroom, Ms. Vaught apologized to the patient’s family and conveyed that she will “forever be haunted by her role in the (patient’s) passing.”

Overall, this served as an opportunity for health care workers to address oftentimes poor working conditions, which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Davidson County District Attorney’s office conveyed that this was one case of a careless nurse and not a reflection of the nursing profession. The prosecutors were in accord with a probation verdict. The family felt that their mother, the patient, would not want to see the nurse serve a jail sentence: “Mom was a very forgiving person.”

The patient’s cause of death was listed as “intracerebral hemorrhage and cardiac arrest.” One year later, a new death certificate was issued and noted vecuronium intoxication as the cause of death.

Continue to: The health care institution’s involvement...

The health care institution’s involvement

Approximately 1 year after an apparent anonymous tip was made to health care officials, an unscheduled state and federal investigation, with the threat of possible sanctions, occurred at the VUMC. This was predicated on the criminal indictment related to Ms. Vaught. In the end, her nursing license was revoked, as noted earlier. The family earlier reached an out-of-court settlement with the hospital and there were a number of problems identified at the university medical center.¹¹

Legal principles in the case

Most criminal cases are state cases. Crimes are defined in state statutes, and the trial takes place in state courts. Thus, crimes are defined a little differently from state to state. Ms. Vaught, for example, was tried in Tennessee under the laws of that state.

Homicide involves the killing of a human being. It may not be a crime. For example, there is “justifiable homicide,” such as self-defense. At the other extreme is first-degree murder, an intentional and planned killing. In this case, Ms. Vaught was charged with criminally negligent homicide, which is usually the least serious of criminal homicides but is still a felony. (Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter, which was not an issue in this case.) In some states, criminally negligent homicide is sometimes referred to as involuntary manslaughter. The mens rea for involuntary manslaughter is generally recklessness or “criminal negligence.” This crime goes by various names depending on the state, but involuntary manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are common names.

Ordinary negligence versus criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is usually considered a more serious mistake than ordinary negligence. This is where there is a difference between civil malpractice negligence and criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is somewhat more careless than ordinary negligence. To use a driving example, if Dr. A was driving home from the hospital, missed seeing a red light, and killed Joe Pedestrian, it could be ordinary negligence. If, however, Dr. B was texting or drinking while driving, causing Dr. B to be distracted and miss seeing the red light, killing a pedestrian, it could be criminal negligence and result in the conviction for the homicide. Of course, in either case there could be civil liability for causing the death.

Applying these legal principles to the reported facts in Ms. Vaught’s case, it appears there was more than simple negligence. That is, the nurse was more than careless. Using “VE” for the wrong drug might have been negligent. In addition, however, she disengaged a safeguard meant to prevent wrongful use of the drug, failed to notice that the drug was a powder instead of a liquid, and ignored the red cap warning that the drug was a paralyzing agent. It becomes apparent why the jury could have found aggravated or criminal negligence.

It is worth emphasizing that in this case, the criminal charges were unusual. For years, studies have suggested that many deaths result from medical errors. The Institute of Medicine famously said that the number of deaths from medical errors was equivalent to that of a 747 airplane crashing every day.^12,13 These events result in a relatively small number of malpractice actions but an infinitesimally small number of homicide charges. Among other things, prosecutors are reluctant to pursue such cases regarding acts carried out as part of clinical duties unless there is strong evidence, and grand juries may be reluctant to indict medical professionals.¹⁴

Nonetheless, medical professionals ultimately can be criminally responsible for deaths resulting from intentional, or criminally negligent, careless practice. Such liability should not dissuade nurses or others from medical practice any more than the much more common homicide charges that can occur from driving an automobile carelessly that results in someone’s death. A fundamental purpose of the criminal law is to disincentivize unnecessarily harmful (deadly) conduct, whether it is distracted driving or distracted nursing.

Continue to: The drug-prescribing crimes...

The drug-prescribing crimes

The US Supreme Court considered a much different kind of criminal medical practice in 2 (consolidated) cases in its 2021–2022 Term. Physicians in 2 states were each tried and convicted of federal charges of illegally dispensing or distributing (prescribing) controlled substances.¹⁵ A federal statute makes it a felony for a physician, or others, “except as authorized” to “knowingly or intentionally distribute, or dispense a controlled substance.”¹⁶ Federal regulations clarify the statute. The regulation provides that a prescription is authorized only if a doctor issues it “for a legitimate medical purpose . . . acting in the usual course of professional practice.”¹⁷

CASE 2 Physicians charged with overprescribing controlled substances

In these 2 drug-prescribing cases, the physicians had grossly overprescribed the opioids. One reportedly wrote prescriptions in 2 states in exchange for payments in cash or, infrequently, firearms, approximating the cost of the prescriptions to street drugs. The other had a clinic that, over about 4 years, issued 300,000 prescriptions for controlled substances and was a significant source for some kinds of fentanyl.¹⁸

WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

In each trial, the juries found the defendant guilty of improper distribution of controlled substances. Although the charges were not homicides, the sentencing judges were much more severe than the court had been in the nursing case discussed above. One physician received a prison term of 20 years, the other, a 25-year term. These undoubtedly reflect both the outrageous conduct and the likely great harm the defendants did.

The Supreme Court heard the cases

The Supreme Court reversed these physicians’ convictions. The Court held that the lower courts had not correctly described for the juries the mens rea required for a conviction under these charges. The Supreme Court held that to be convicted of these offenses, the government had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [physician] knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner.”¹⁹ Both can be retried and probably will be unless they reach a plea agreement with the federal government. Nonetheless, the Court established a very high standard. Carelessness is not enough, but rather “knowingly” acting in an unauthorized way is required. Although these physicians were prosecuted under federal law, other physicians have been prosecuted under state laws limiting the distribution of controlled substances.²⁰

Some physicians have expressed concern that the Supreme Court, in these cases, made the practice of medicine more dangerous for physicians (the threat of criminal sanctions) and patients (making it more difficult to obtain pain control, for example).^21,22 That view may be overly pessimistic for 2 reasons. First, the Court actually made it more difficult to convict physicians of writing excessive prescriptions. It did so by setting a higher mens rea standard than lower courts were using, that is, the physician had to “knowingly” act in an unauthorized way. Because “knowingly” can be implied by the circumstances, taking guns or cash would be evidence that the physician knowingly misprescribed.

More fundamentally, the actions of these physicians appear to be well outside even a generous legitimate level of controlled substance prescription. These convictions should not be misunderstood as a way of federal courts to crack down on pain medications. However, the original convictions are a warning to the small handful who grossly overprescribe controlled substances.

Lessons about criminal law and the practice of medicine

Medical professionals’ strong reaction to criminal charges is understandable. Criminal charges can result in jail time (the physicians involved in the controlled substance case were sentenced to 20 years or more) and hefty fines; bring social and professional disapprobation; may lead to license discipline; and are terribly disruptive even for those found not guilty. To make matters worse, malpractice insurance ordinarily does not cover criminal charges, so any fines and the cost of defense are likely out of pocket for those charged—and that can be very expensive. Therefore, the strong reaction to the cases we have described is understandable.

At the same time, the probability of criminal charges against medical personnel for their medical treatment is very low compared with, for example, fraudulent billing, their driving habits, or tax avoidance. Criminal charges are much more likely to arise from insurance fraud, Medicare or Medicaid dishonesty, kickbacks, false statements, and similar corruption crimes rather than inadequate practice. In the cases we examined here, there is an enhanced or aggravated negligence in one case and grossly inappropriate prescribing in the others (which the Supreme Court held must be “knowingly” wrong).

Finally, there is an irony. Medical professionals worried about practice-related criminal charges should be thankful for the malpractice system. Civil malpractice is, as a practical matter, an alternative for patients who believe they were mistreated or harmed by physicians or other providers. They have the option of finding a private attorney to file a civil complaint. In the absence of that system, they would be much more likely to take their grievance and complaint to the prosecutor to seek answers and retribution. Criminal law and civil liability are each a way of allowing someone harmed by another to seek redress. Both are intended to deter harmful conduct and provide some individual and social retribution for such behavior. The civil system, of course, also provides the potential for compensation to those injured. An injured patient without the possibility of a civil suit sometimes would turn to the criminal system for satisfaction. This way, the malpractice system is a better alternative to criminal charges. ●

Clinicians in the United States are reporting more cases of invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) in children, according to an alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These infections are rare but can be deadly, and they can affect adults as well as children.

Health care providers should consider this bacterial infection as a possible cause of severe illness in children and adults, including those with recent or co-occurring viral respiratory infections, the agency advised in a Dec. 22 alert.

In some cases, iGAS manifests as persistent or worsening symptoms after a patient with a known viral infection initially starts to show signs of improvement, according to the agency.

In November, the CDC was notified about a possible increase in cases of pediatric iGAS at a hospital in Colorado. Since then, two surveillance systems – the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network and the CDC’s Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System – have detected potential increases in pediatric iGAS cases in other states.

The uptick has coincided with “increased circulation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and other respiratory viruses,” the advisory stated. “While the overall number of cases has remained relatively low and iGAS infections remain rare in children, [the] CDC is investigating these reports.”
 

Not just strep throat

Group A Streptococcus bacteria can cause strep throat and infections in skin and soft tissue. The pathogens also can lead to uncommon but severe diseases, such as sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing fasciitis, according to the CDC. The severe illnesses “are associated with high mortality rates and require immediate treatment, including appropriate antibiotic therapy,” the agency said.

Groups at higher risk for iGAS include people aged 65 years or older, American Indian and Alaska Native populations, residents of long-term care facilities, those with wounds or skin disease, people who inject drugs, and people experiencing homelessness.

People with medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, immunosuppression, and chronic kidney, heart, or respiratory disease also are at increased risk.

Invasive strep A infections initially decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic amid measures to reduce the spread of disease, such as masking and social distancing. But since September, monthly cases have exceeded those in 2020 and 2021. “It is too early to determine whether this rise is beyond what would be expected for pre-COVID” seasonal patterns, the CDC said.
 

Recommendations

Because iGAS can occur after the flu or chickenpox, health care providers should offer influenza and varicella vaccinations to all eligible people who are not up to date with their vaccines.

In addition, clinicians should educate patients about symptoms of iGAS that require urgent medical attention, including necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis, and toxic shock syndrome.

They also should obtain cultures for suspected cases of iGAS as clinically indicated, follow guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of strep throat, and be aware of alternative ways to treat strep throat in children amid a shortage of amoxicillin suspension.

Researchers have reported more cases of iGAS in the United Kingdom this year, as well. According to the UK Health Security Agency, 74 deaths, including 16 children, in England have been attributed to iGAS since September.

“We know that this is concerning for parents, but I want to stress that while we are seeing an increase in cases in children, this remains very uncommon,” UKHSA Deputy Director Colin Brown said in a news release. “There are lots of winter bugs circulating that can make your child feel unwell that mostly aren’t cause for alarm. However, make sure you talk to a health professional if your child is getting worse after a bout of scarlet fever, a sore throat, or respiratory infection.”

A fever that doesn’t resolve, dehydration, extreme tiredness, and difficulty breathing are signs to watch out for, Dr. Brown said.

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

Clinicians in the United States are reporting more cases of invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) in children, according to an alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These infections are rare but can be deadly, and they can affect adults as well as children.

Health care providers should consider this bacterial infection as a possible cause of severe illness in children and adults, including those with recent or co-occurring viral respiratory infections, the agency advised in a Dec. 22 alert.

In some cases, iGAS manifests as persistent or worsening symptoms after a patient with a known viral infection initially starts to show signs of improvement, according to the agency.

In November, the CDC was notified about a possible increase in cases of pediatric iGAS at a hospital in Colorado. Since then, two surveillance systems – the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network and the CDC’s Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System – have detected potential increases in pediatric iGAS cases in other states.

The uptick has coincided with “increased circulation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and other respiratory viruses,” the advisory stated. “While the overall number of cases has remained relatively low and iGAS infections remain rare in children, [the] CDC is investigating these reports.”
 

Not just strep throat

Group A Streptococcus bacteria can cause strep throat and infections in skin and soft tissue. The pathogens also can lead to uncommon but severe diseases, such as sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing fasciitis, according to the CDC. The severe illnesses “are associated with high mortality rates and require immediate treatment, including appropriate antibiotic therapy,” the agency said.

Groups at higher risk for iGAS include people aged 65 years or older, American Indian and Alaska Native populations, residents of long-term care facilities, those with wounds or skin disease, people who inject drugs, and people experiencing homelessness.

People with medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, immunosuppression, and chronic kidney, heart, or respiratory disease also are at increased risk.

Invasive strep A infections initially decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic amid measures to reduce the spread of disease, such as masking and social distancing. But since September, monthly cases have exceeded those in 2020 and 2021. “It is too early to determine whether this rise is beyond what would be expected for pre-COVID” seasonal patterns, the CDC said.
 

Recommendations

Because iGAS can occur after the flu or chickenpox, health care providers should offer influenza and varicella vaccinations to all eligible people who are not up to date with their vaccines.

In addition, clinicians should educate patients about symptoms of iGAS that require urgent medical attention, including necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis, and toxic shock syndrome.

They also should obtain cultures for suspected cases of iGAS as clinically indicated, follow guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of strep throat, and be aware of alternative ways to treat strep throat in children amid a shortage of amoxicillin suspension.

Researchers have reported more cases of iGAS in the United Kingdom this year, as well. According to the UK Health Security Agency, 74 deaths, including 16 children, in England have been attributed to iGAS since September.

“We know that this is concerning for parents, but I want to stress that while we are seeing an increase in cases in children, this remains very uncommon,” UKHSA Deputy Director Colin Brown said in a news release. “There are lots of winter bugs circulating that can make your child feel unwell that mostly aren’t cause for alarm. However, make sure you talk to a health professional if your child is getting worse after a bout of scarlet fever, a sore throat, or respiratory infection.”

A fever that doesn’t resolve, dehydration, extreme tiredness, and difficulty breathing are signs to watch out for, Dr. Brown said.

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

Clinicians in the United States are reporting more cases of invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) in children, according to an alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These infections are rare but can be deadly, and they can affect adults as well as children.

Health care providers should consider this bacterial infection as a possible cause of severe illness in children and adults, including those with recent or co-occurring viral respiratory infections, the agency advised in a Dec. 22 alert.

In some cases, iGAS manifests as persistent or worsening symptoms after a patient with a known viral infection initially starts to show signs of improvement, according to the agency.

In November, the CDC was notified about a possible increase in cases of pediatric iGAS at a hospital in Colorado. Since then, two surveillance systems – the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network and the CDC’s Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System – have detected potential increases in pediatric iGAS cases in other states.

The uptick has coincided with “increased circulation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and other respiratory viruses,” the advisory stated. “While the overall number of cases has remained relatively low and iGAS infections remain rare in children, [the] CDC is investigating these reports.”
 

Not just strep throat

Group A Streptococcus bacteria can cause strep throat and infections in skin and soft tissue. The pathogens also can lead to uncommon but severe diseases, such as sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing fasciitis, according to the CDC. The severe illnesses “are associated with high mortality rates and require immediate treatment, including appropriate antibiotic therapy,” the agency said.

Groups at higher risk for iGAS include people aged 65 years or older, American Indian and Alaska Native populations, residents of long-term care facilities, those with wounds or skin disease, people who inject drugs, and people experiencing homelessness.

People with medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, immunosuppression, and chronic kidney, heart, or respiratory disease also are at increased risk.

Invasive strep A infections initially decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic amid measures to reduce the spread of disease, such as masking and social distancing. But since September, monthly cases have exceeded those in 2020 and 2021. “It is too early to determine whether this rise is beyond what would be expected for pre-COVID” seasonal patterns, the CDC said.
 

Recommendations

Because iGAS can occur after the flu or chickenpox, health care providers should offer influenza and varicella vaccinations to all eligible people who are not up to date with their vaccines.

In addition, clinicians should educate patients about symptoms of iGAS that require urgent medical attention, including necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis, and toxic shock syndrome.

They also should obtain cultures for suspected cases of iGAS as clinically indicated, follow guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of strep throat, and be aware of alternative ways to treat strep throat in children amid a shortage of amoxicillin suspension.

Researchers have reported more cases of iGAS in the United Kingdom this year, as well. According to the UK Health Security Agency, 74 deaths, including 16 children, in England have been attributed to iGAS since September.

“We know that this is concerning for parents, but I want to stress that while we are seeing an increase in cases in children, this remains very uncommon,” UKHSA Deputy Director Colin Brown said in a news release. “There are lots of winter bugs circulating that can make your child feel unwell that mostly aren’t cause for alarm. However, make sure you talk to a health professional if your child is getting worse after a bout of scarlet fever, a sore throat, or respiratory infection.”

A fever that doesn’t resolve, dehydration, extreme tiredness, and difficulty breathing are signs to watch out for, Dr. Brown said.

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

A common food dye found in candy, soft drinks, and some cereals, known as Allura Red, can lead to inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn’s disease, and other health problems, new research shows.

Long-term ingestion of the dye disrupts gut function, causing a series of changes that lead to a higher risk of colitis, according to the research from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The dye is also known as FD&C Red 40 and Food Red 17. It adds color and texture and is often used to attract children, according to a press release on Eurekalert.

“This study demonstrates significant harmful effects of Allura Red on gut health and identifies gut serotonin as a critical factor mediating these effects. These findings have important implications in the prevention and management of gut inflammation,” said senior author Waliul Khan, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the McMaster department of pathology and molecular medicine.

“What we have found is striking and alarming, as this common synthetic food dye is a possible dietary trigger for IBDs,” he said. “The literature suggests that the consumption of Allura Red also affects certain allergies, immune disorders, and behavioural problems in children, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.”

The human diet in Western cultures, with its reliance on processed fats, red and processed meat, and low fiber, contributes to IBDs as well, Dr. Khan said.

Food dyes such as Allura Red have been used more and more in recent years. Their effect on gut health hasn’t been studied much.

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

A common food dye found in candy, soft drinks, and some cereals, known as Allura Red, can lead to inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn’s disease, and other health problems, new research shows.

Long-term ingestion of the dye disrupts gut function, causing a series of changes that lead to a higher risk of colitis, according to the research from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The dye is also known as FD&C Red 40 and Food Red 17. It adds color and texture and is often used to attract children, according to a press release on Eurekalert.

“This study demonstrates significant harmful effects of Allura Red on gut health and identifies gut serotonin as a critical factor mediating these effects. These findings have important implications in the prevention and management of gut inflammation,” said senior author Waliul Khan, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the McMaster department of pathology and molecular medicine.

“What we have found is striking and alarming, as this common synthetic food dye is a possible dietary trigger for IBDs,” he said. “The literature suggests that the consumption of Allura Red also affects certain allergies, immune disorders, and behavioural problems in children, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.”

The human diet in Western cultures, with its reliance on processed fats, red and processed meat, and low fiber, contributes to IBDs as well, Dr. Khan said.

Food dyes such as Allura Red have been used more and more in recent years. Their effect on gut health hasn’t been studied much.

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

A common food dye found in candy, soft drinks, and some cereals, known as Allura Red, can lead to inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn’s disease, and other health problems, new research shows.

Long-term ingestion of the dye disrupts gut function, causing a series of changes that lead to a higher risk of colitis, according to the research from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The dye is also known as FD&C Red 40 and Food Red 17. It adds color and texture and is often used to attract children, according to a press release on Eurekalert.

“This study demonstrates significant harmful effects of Allura Red on gut health and identifies gut serotonin as a critical factor mediating these effects. These findings have important implications in the prevention and management of gut inflammation,” said senior author Waliul Khan, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the McMaster department of pathology and molecular medicine.

“What we have found is striking and alarming, as this common synthetic food dye is a possible dietary trigger for IBDs,” he said. “The literature suggests that the consumption of Allura Red also affects certain allergies, immune disorders, and behavioural problems in children, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.”

The human diet in Western cultures, with its reliance on processed fats, red and processed meat, and low fiber, contributes to IBDs as well, Dr. Khan said.

Food dyes such as Allura Red have been used more and more in recent years. Their effect on gut health hasn’t been studied much.

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

Dr Harold Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, reports on studies in HR+/HER2- breast cancer presented at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 

Dr Burstein reports on the phase 2 RIGHT Choice study, which is the first head-to-head comparison of endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor vs chemotherapy for stage IV breast cancer. The results indicate that frontline therapy using the combination is superior to chemotherapy.  

Dr Burstein next comments on the phase 3 CAPItello-291 trial, which looked at a new AKT inhibitor, capivasertib. The study compared capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs fulvestrant alone and found that the combination provided meaningful improvements in progression-free survival. He then reports on the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial, which compared fulvestrant with camizestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, in the second-line setting. The study showed that camizestrant was superior to fulvestrant.  

An update of the phase 3 monarchE trial showed an increasing benefit from adding abemaciclib to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting, regardless of the Ki-67 index. 

In closing, Dr Burstein discusses the POSITIVE trial, which indicated that endocrine therapy can be safely interrupted in women whose breast cancer is in remission and who are pursuing pregnancy.  

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Medical Oncologist, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr Harold Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, reports on studies in HR+/HER2- breast cancer presented at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 

Dr Burstein reports on the phase 2 RIGHT Choice study, which is the first head-to-head comparison of endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor vs chemotherapy for stage IV breast cancer. The results indicate that frontline therapy using the combination is superior to chemotherapy.  

Dr Burstein next comments on the phase 3 CAPItello-291 trial, which looked at a new AKT inhibitor, capivasertib. The study compared capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs fulvestrant alone and found that the combination provided meaningful improvements in progression-free survival. He then reports on the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial, which compared fulvestrant with camizestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, in the second-line setting. The study showed that camizestrant was superior to fulvestrant.  

An update of the phase 3 monarchE trial showed an increasing benefit from adding abemaciclib to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting, regardless of the Ki-67 index. 

In closing, Dr Burstein discusses the POSITIVE trial, which indicated that endocrine therapy can be safely interrupted in women whose breast cancer is in remission and who are pursuing pregnancy.  

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Medical Oncologist, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Dr Harold Burstein, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, reports on studies in HR+/HER2- breast cancer presented at the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. 

Dr Burstein reports on the phase 2 RIGHT Choice study, which is the first head-to-head comparison of endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor vs chemotherapy for stage IV breast cancer. The results indicate that frontline therapy using the combination is superior to chemotherapy.  

Dr Burstein next comments on the phase 3 CAPItello-291 trial, which looked at a new AKT inhibitor, capivasertib. The study compared capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs fulvestrant alone and found that the combination provided meaningful improvements in progression-free survival. He then reports on the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial, which compared fulvestrant with camizestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, in the second-line setting. The study showed that camizestrant was superior to fulvestrant.  

An update of the phase 3 monarchE trial showed an increasing benefit from adding abemaciclib to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting, regardless of the Ki-67 index. 

In closing, Dr Burstein discusses the POSITIVE trial, which indicated that endocrine therapy can be safely interrupted in women whose breast cancer is in remission and who are pursuing pregnancy.  

--

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Medical Oncologist, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Breast cancer treatments have made great strides in recent years with significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the incidence of breast cancer has increased just slightly in recent years after a dip in the early 2000s.

“The good news is that mortality is decreasing, but it still remains high. We still have a long way to go to tackle this problem of breast cancer incidence as well as the number of deaths,” said Angela DeMichele, MD, co-leader of the breast cancer research program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center. She participated in a session on obstacles in breast cancer treatment held in December at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. She joined other oncologists in outlining key challenges that need to be addressed to improve breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

They highlighted six obstacles: The need for more prevention/early detection strategies; the underutilization of artificial intelligence; underuse of precision oncology such as targeted therapies; the need for innovation in clinical trials; a widening gap in cancer disparities; and the need to align incentives and funding for research collaboration, training, and retention.

Since 2012, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 20 new therapeutics to treat breast cancer. Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, director of the breast center at LMU University Hospital, Munich, said that the development of new therapies has in a way become a victim of its own success. Therapies and survival have improved, making it harder to compare novel therapies to the standard of care and prove a benefit. Treatment guidelines are changing so quickly that clinical trials are sometimes obsolete by the time they are published because of changes to the standard of care. That places a need on more real-world evidence that can be designed to be useful in the clinic, and AI can help here. “We need to convince regulators to act upon cleverly planned real world evidence analysis. You can randomize them, you can use registries, and you should also be able to change labels because of [new] data,” Dr. Harbeck said.

There are many risk factors that drive breast cancer, and it is very heterogeneous, said Christine Ambrosone, PhD, chair of the department of cancer prevention and control at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y. She called for identifying patients who are at risk for a poor prognosis, such as patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer, high-grade, and triple-negative breast cancer. Otherwise there is a risk of overtreatment of low-risk tumors, which could potentially be identified with new tools in precision oncology such as liquid biopsy tests, also known as multicancer early detection tests. These tests can detect cancers long before they become symptomatic. The first such test was launched this year and many more are in clinical trials.

Regina Barzilay, PhD, professor and expert in the use of artificial intelligence in health at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that machine learning is used in many fields, but hardly at all in breast cancer. It could be applied to data on biomarkers and other factors collected from retrospective analyses and clinical trials. She added that machine learning is often applied to biochemistry and single cell analysis of other tumor types, but rarely in breast cancer. “It is severely underutilized,” Dr. Barzilay said. One challenge is that researchers are not necessarily familiar with the techniques of machine learning and AI. Another issue is that breast cancer data are not easy to share and may not be readily available to AI researchers. “An investment in interchangeable data is crucially important,” she said.

Artificial intelligence could assist in identifying and modeling factors that contribute to cancer risk by teasing apart complicated relationships, such as the association between pregnancy, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces the risk of hormone receptor–positive disease, but increases the risk of hormone receptor–negative disease.

Another key challenge is the underuse of “omics” technologies, which measure large scale patterns in biological characteristics such as gene variation or protein expression. That has roots in the history of breast cancer being considered as a separate entity from other solid tumors such as lung or pancreatic cancer. Fabrice André, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, France, emphasized that breast cancer shouldn’t be considered an entity when it’s metastatic. Instead, tumors should be defined by molecular characteristics they share. He anticipates a personalized medicine future where academic and industry groups collaborate to create an individualized therapy for patients based on genetic factors.
 

Access to therapies for all patients

Novel and effective therapies can make a difference only if patients have access to them, and a key obstacle to improving breast cancer care is racism and inequities in health care. “We have to acknowledge that there is racism in medicine. I think once we acknowledge that, then we can look at things in our practices that we need to change. We can think very broadly and look at things that perhaps disadvantage one population over another,” said Lori Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Pierce also emphasized the need to recruit more underrepresented groups to participate in clinical trials. For example, of six breast cancer clinical trials – for margetuximab (Margenza), sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy), tucatinib (Tukysa), trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), alpelisib (Piqray), and talazoparib (Talzenna), only a small percentage included Black, Asian, and Hispanic women. For trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is widely recognized as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate, 51% were White, 42% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Black. For sacituzumab govitecan, a blockbuster drug for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that disproportionately affects Black women, only 7% of women enrolled in clinical trials were Black. In clinical trials for margetuximab, approved to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants were White, 5% Black, 6% Asian, and 9% Hispanic.

There is a perception that minorities may be unwilling to participate in clinical trials, but that’s not true, according to Patty Spears, a research manager of the Patient Advocates for Research Council at the University of North Carolina. “We know that there are data that clearly show that patients will go on clinical trials at the same rate, whether they’re Black, White, Asian, or whatever. You have to be able to have them in your system and ask them to go on trial,” she said.

Another panelist told a personal anecdote to illustrate the point. Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, recalled that he spent 13 years at Washington University in St. Louis, serving one of the more segregated cities in the United States. The city hospital closed, and Washington University and the Siteman Cancer Center signed a contract to treat the underserved population that was suddenly without a source of care. “Subsequent to that, we over-accrued relative to the population of African American patients. What that taught me is it’s nothing to do with the lack of willingness of African Americans to participate in clinical trials. Quite the opposite. It’s the question of access to clinical trials, access to great care, and not creating health care systems that segregate patients into places where they’re not getting access,” he said.

Breast cancer treatments have made great strides in recent years with significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the incidence of breast cancer has increased just slightly in recent years after a dip in the early 2000s.

“The good news is that mortality is decreasing, but it still remains high. We still have a long way to go to tackle this problem of breast cancer incidence as well as the number of deaths,” said Angela DeMichele, MD, co-leader of the breast cancer research program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center. She participated in a session on obstacles in breast cancer treatment held in December at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. She joined other oncologists in outlining key challenges that need to be addressed to improve breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

They highlighted six obstacles: The need for more prevention/early detection strategies; the underutilization of artificial intelligence; underuse of precision oncology such as targeted therapies; the need for innovation in clinical trials; a widening gap in cancer disparities; and the need to align incentives and funding for research collaboration, training, and retention.

Since 2012, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 20 new therapeutics to treat breast cancer. Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, director of the breast center at LMU University Hospital, Munich, said that the development of new therapies has in a way become a victim of its own success. Therapies and survival have improved, making it harder to compare novel therapies to the standard of care and prove a benefit. Treatment guidelines are changing so quickly that clinical trials are sometimes obsolete by the time they are published because of changes to the standard of care. That places a need on more real-world evidence that can be designed to be useful in the clinic, and AI can help here. “We need to convince regulators to act upon cleverly planned real world evidence analysis. You can randomize them, you can use registries, and you should also be able to change labels because of [new] data,” Dr. Harbeck said.

There are many risk factors that drive breast cancer, and it is very heterogeneous, said Christine Ambrosone, PhD, chair of the department of cancer prevention and control at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y. She called for identifying patients who are at risk for a poor prognosis, such as patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer, high-grade, and triple-negative breast cancer. Otherwise there is a risk of overtreatment of low-risk tumors, which could potentially be identified with new tools in precision oncology such as liquid biopsy tests, also known as multicancer early detection tests. These tests can detect cancers long before they become symptomatic. The first such test was launched this year and many more are in clinical trials.

Regina Barzilay, PhD, professor and expert in the use of artificial intelligence in health at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that machine learning is used in many fields, but hardly at all in breast cancer. It could be applied to data on biomarkers and other factors collected from retrospective analyses and clinical trials. She added that machine learning is often applied to biochemistry and single cell analysis of other tumor types, but rarely in breast cancer. “It is severely underutilized,” Dr. Barzilay said. One challenge is that researchers are not necessarily familiar with the techniques of machine learning and AI. Another issue is that breast cancer data are not easy to share and may not be readily available to AI researchers. “An investment in interchangeable data is crucially important,” she said.

Artificial intelligence could assist in identifying and modeling factors that contribute to cancer risk by teasing apart complicated relationships, such as the association between pregnancy, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces the risk of hormone receptor–positive disease, but increases the risk of hormone receptor–negative disease.

Another key challenge is the underuse of “omics” technologies, which measure large scale patterns in biological characteristics such as gene variation or protein expression. That has roots in the history of breast cancer being considered as a separate entity from other solid tumors such as lung or pancreatic cancer. Fabrice André, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, France, emphasized that breast cancer shouldn’t be considered an entity when it’s metastatic. Instead, tumors should be defined by molecular characteristics they share. He anticipates a personalized medicine future where academic and industry groups collaborate to create an individualized therapy for patients based on genetic factors.
 

Access to therapies for all patients

Novel and effective therapies can make a difference only if patients have access to them, and a key obstacle to improving breast cancer care is racism and inequities in health care. “We have to acknowledge that there is racism in medicine. I think once we acknowledge that, then we can look at things in our practices that we need to change. We can think very broadly and look at things that perhaps disadvantage one population over another,” said Lori Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Pierce also emphasized the need to recruit more underrepresented groups to participate in clinical trials. For example, of six breast cancer clinical trials – for margetuximab (Margenza), sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy), tucatinib (Tukysa), trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), alpelisib (Piqray), and talazoparib (Talzenna), only a small percentage included Black, Asian, and Hispanic women. For trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is widely recognized as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate, 51% were White, 42% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Black. For sacituzumab govitecan, a blockbuster drug for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that disproportionately affects Black women, only 7% of women enrolled in clinical trials were Black. In clinical trials for margetuximab, approved to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants were White, 5% Black, 6% Asian, and 9% Hispanic.

There is a perception that minorities may be unwilling to participate in clinical trials, but that’s not true, according to Patty Spears, a research manager of the Patient Advocates for Research Council at the University of North Carolina. “We know that there are data that clearly show that patients will go on clinical trials at the same rate, whether they’re Black, White, Asian, or whatever. You have to be able to have them in your system and ask them to go on trial,” she said.

Another panelist told a personal anecdote to illustrate the point. Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, recalled that he spent 13 years at Washington University in St. Louis, serving one of the more segregated cities in the United States. The city hospital closed, and Washington University and the Siteman Cancer Center signed a contract to treat the underserved population that was suddenly without a source of care. “Subsequent to that, we over-accrued relative to the population of African American patients. What that taught me is it’s nothing to do with the lack of willingness of African Americans to participate in clinical trials. Quite the opposite. It’s the question of access to clinical trials, access to great care, and not creating health care systems that segregate patients into places where they’re not getting access,” he said.

Breast cancer treatments have made great strides in recent years with significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the incidence of breast cancer has increased just slightly in recent years after a dip in the early 2000s.

“The good news is that mortality is decreasing, but it still remains high. We still have a long way to go to tackle this problem of breast cancer incidence as well as the number of deaths,” said Angela DeMichele, MD, co-leader of the breast cancer research program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center. She participated in a session on obstacles in breast cancer treatment held in December at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. She joined other oncologists in outlining key challenges that need to be addressed to improve breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

They highlighted six obstacles: The need for more prevention/early detection strategies; the underutilization of artificial intelligence; underuse of precision oncology such as targeted therapies; the need for innovation in clinical trials; a widening gap in cancer disparities; and the need to align incentives and funding for research collaboration, training, and retention.

Since 2012, the Food and Drug Administration has approved 20 new therapeutics to treat breast cancer. Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, director of the breast center at LMU University Hospital, Munich, said that the development of new therapies has in a way become a victim of its own success. Therapies and survival have improved, making it harder to compare novel therapies to the standard of care and prove a benefit. Treatment guidelines are changing so quickly that clinical trials are sometimes obsolete by the time they are published because of changes to the standard of care. That places a need on more real-world evidence that can be designed to be useful in the clinic, and AI can help here. “We need to convince regulators to act upon cleverly planned real world evidence analysis. You can randomize them, you can use registries, and you should also be able to change labels because of [new] data,” Dr. Harbeck said.

There are many risk factors that drive breast cancer, and it is very heterogeneous, said Christine Ambrosone, PhD, chair of the department of cancer prevention and control at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y. She called for identifying patients who are at risk for a poor prognosis, such as patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer, high-grade, and triple-negative breast cancer. Otherwise there is a risk of overtreatment of low-risk tumors, which could potentially be identified with new tools in precision oncology such as liquid biopsy tests, also known as multicancer early detection tests. These tests can detect cancers long before they become symptomatic. The first such test was launched this year and many more are in clinical trials.

Regina Barzilay, PhD, professor and expert in the use of artificial intelligence in health at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pointed out that machine learning is used in many fields, but hardly at all in breast cancer. It could be applied to data on biomarkers and other factors collected from retrospective analyses and clinical trials. She added that machine learning is often applied to biochemistry and single cell analysis of other tumor types, but rarely in breast cancer. “It is severely underutilized,” Dr. Barzilay said. One challenge is that researchers are not necessarily familiar with the techniques of machine learning and AI. Another issue is that breast cancer data are not easy to share and may not be readily available to AI researchers. “An investment in interchangeable data is crucially important,” she said.

Artificial intelligence could assist in identifying and modeling factors that contribute to cancer risk by teasing apart complicated relationships, such as the association between pregnancy, breastfeeding, and breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces the risk of hormone receptor–positive disease, but increases the risk of hormone receptor–negative disease.

Another key challenge is the underuse of “omics” technologies, which measure large scale patterns in biological characteristics such as gene variation or protein expression. That has roots in the history of breast cancer being considered as a separate entity from other solid tumors such as lung or pancreatic cancer. Fabrice André, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, France, emphasized that breast cancer shouldn’t be considered an entity when it’s metastatic. Instead, tumors should be defined by molecular characteristics they share. He anticipates a personalized medicine future where academic and industry groups collaborate to create an individualized therapy for patients based on genetic factors.
 

Access to therapies for all patients

Novel and effective therapies can make a difference only if patients have access to them, and a key obstacle to improving breast cancer care is racism and inequities in health care. “We have to acknowledge that there is racism in medicine. I think once we acknowledge that, then we can look at things in our practices that we need to change. We can think very broadly and look at things that perhaps disadvantage one population over another,” said Lori Pierce, MD, a radiation oncologist with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Pierce also emphasized the need to recruit more underrepresented groups to participate in clinical trials. For example, of six breast cancer clinical trials – for margetuximab (Margenza), sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy), tucatinib (Tukysa), trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu), alpelisib (Piqray), and talazoparib (Talzenna), only a small percentage included Black, Asian, and Hispanic women. For trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is widely recognized as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate, 51% were White, 42% Asian, 6% Hispanic, and 3% Black. For sacituzumab govitecan, a blockbuster drug for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that disproportionately affects Black women, only 7% of women enrolled in clinical trials were Black. In clinical trials for margetuximab, approved to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants were White, 5% Black, 6% Asian, and 9% Hispanic.

There is a perception that minorities may be unwilling to participate in clinical trials, but that’s not true, according to Patty Spears, a research manager of the Patient Advocates for Research Council at the University of North Carolina. “We know that there are data that clearly show that patients will go on clinical trials at the same rate, whether they’re Black, White, Asian, or whatever. You have to be able to have them in your system and ask them to go on trial,” she said.

Another panelist told a personal anecdote to illustrate the point. Matthew Ellis, MD, PhD, recalled that he spent 13 years at Washington University in St. Louis, serving one of the more segregated cities in the United States. The city hospital closed, and Washington University and the Siteman Cancer Center signed a contract to treat the underserved population that was suddenly without a source of care. “Subsequent to that, we over-accrued relative to the population of African American patients. What that taught me is it’s nothing to do with the lack of willingness of African Americans to participate in clinical trials. Quite the opposite. It’s the question of access to clinical trials, access to great care, and not creating health care systems that segregate patients into places where they’re not getting access,” he said.

Dr Peter Martin, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, NY, highlights breakthroughs and developments in mantle cell lymphoma presented at the 2022 American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition. 

Dr Martin begins with the top-ranked abstract from the meeting, a European trial that looked at ibrutinib as a substitute for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger patients. The results suggest that the era of upfront ASCT may now be over. 

Next, he reports on a trial that investigated the addition of the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib to lenalidomide and rituximab. The combination provided excellent clinical responses, indicating that mantle cell lymphoma patients may soon be able to avoid chemotherapy altogether. 

The next trial selected by Dr Martin examined whether the addition of lenalidomide to consolidation rituximab after first-line bendamustine-rituximab would improve survival outcomes. The study reported no additional benefit, at the cost of increased adverse events. 

Dr Martin closes by discussing two trials in the relapsed/refractory setting, one a phase 1 trial of the bispecific antibody glofitamab, the other a phase 1b-2 trial of venetoclax with lenalidomide and rituximab. Both showed encouraging results that point to potential future treatment strategies. 

--

Associate Professor of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 

Peter Martin, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; ADCT; BeiGene; Bristol Myers Squibb; Epizyme; Genentech; Gilead; Janssen; Takeda 

Dr Peter Martin, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, NY, highlights breakthroughs and developments in mantle cell lymphoma presented at the 2022 American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition. 

Dr Martin begins with the top-ranked abstract from the meeting, a European trial that looked at ibrutinib as a substitute for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger patients. The results suggest that the era of upfront ASCT may now be over. 

Next, he reports on a trial that investigated the addition of the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib to lenalidomide and rituximab. The combination provided excellent clinical responses, indicating that mantle cell lymphoma patients may soon be able to avoid chemotherapy altogether. 

The next trial selected by Dr Martin examined whether the addition of lenalidomide to consolidation rituximab after first-line bendamustine-rituximab would improve survival outcomes. The study reported no additional benefit, at the cost of increased adverse events. 

Dr Martin closes by discussing two trials in the relapsed/refractory setting, one a phase 1 trial of the bispecific antibody glofitamab, the other a phase 1b-2 trial of venetoclax with lenalidomide and rituximab. Both showed encouraging results that point to potential future treatment strategies. 

--

Associate Professor of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 

Peter Martin, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; ADCT; BeiGene; Bristol Myers Squibb; Epizyme; Genentech; Gilead; Janssen; Takeda 

Dr Peter Martin, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, NY, highlights breakthroughs and developments in mantle cell lymphoma presented at the 2022 American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition. 

Dr Martin begins with the top-ranked abstract from the meeting, a European trial that looked at ibrutinib as a substitute for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger patients. The results suggest that the era of upfront ASCT may now be over. 

Next, he reports on a trial that investigated the addition of the second-generation BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib to lenalidomide and rituximab. The combination provided excellent clinical responses, indicating that mantle cell lymphoma patients may soon be able to avoid chemotherapy altogether. 

The next trial selected by Dr Martin examined whether the addition of lenalidomide to consolidation rituximab after first-line bendamustine-rituximab would improve survival outcomes. The study reported no additional benefit, at the cost of increased adverse events. 

Dr Martin closes by discussing two trials in the relapsed/refractory setting, one a phase 1 trial of the bispecific antibody glofitamab, the other a phase 1b-2 trial of venetoclax with lenalidomide and rituximab. Both showed encouraging results that point to potential future treatment strategies. 

--

Associate Professor of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 

Peter Martin, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: 

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AstraZeneca; ADCT; BeiGene; Bristol Myers Squibb; Epizyme; Genentech; Gilead; Janssen; Takeda 

As a toddler undergoing treatment at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont., Caroline Diorio, MD, couldn’t grasp what the nice doctors scurrying in and out of her room were doing. She just knew they were taking care of her.

Dr. Diorio had pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a type of platelet disorder in which the immune system attacks blood platelets for usually unknown reasons.

“I remember very much how worried my parents were,” recalled Dr. Diorio, now a hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And I remember how the tone of the doctor’s voice and the way the doctors communicated provided so much reassurance to my parents.”

Dr. Diorio’s ITP resolved within a few years, but her experience left a lasting impression.

“From that moment on, I don’t remember a time that I didn’t want to be a doctor,” she said. “I had these really formative experiences with doctors who were so lovely, and I thought, ‘I want to do that.’ ”

Though she considered other specialties in medical school at the University of Toronto, Dr. Diorio kept feeling drawn back to pediatric oncology and hematology.

“I have always loved the commitment that parents have to their kids and the team approach that exists,” she said. “Hematology/oncology allowed me to take care of really sick kids but also have this long-term relationship with them and their parents, which I really value and love.”

Dr. Diorio even completed her residency at McMaster alongside one of the same physicians who had cared for her as a child, Ronald Duncan Barr, MD. “It sort of all came full circle,” she said.

Today, Dr. Diorio draws inspiration from memories of her childhood experience. “I try to recreate that and provide as much kindness and compassion as I can for patients and their families, to help when people are in this incredibly vulnerable situation,” she said.

But she takes that even further by researching new therapies for patients who have run out of options, particularly those with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL).

For B-cell ALL and several other blood cancers, an effective option is CAR T-cell therapy, in which physicians collect T-cells from the patient, re-engineer the T cells in the lab so they recognize the proteins expressed on the surface of cancerous cells – called blasts – and then introduce the modified T-cells back into the patient. Once infused, the re-engineered T-cells attack the blasts with the tell-tale proteins.

But with T-ALL, T-cells themselves are infected with cancer, so autologous CAR T-cell therapy is not currently an option, and no allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies have been approved. Dr. Diorio is part of a cutting-edge research team led by David T. Teachey, MD, striving for breakthroughs. “She’s a brilliant clinician, extremely smart and hard-working, exceptional work ethic, great interaction with patients and families with a great bedside manner,” Dr. Teachey said of Dr. Diorio. “She’s just a superstar all around.”

Dr. Teachey first piqued Dr. Diorio’s interest in researching innovative T-ALL therapies when she arrived at CHOP as a hematology/oncology fellow in 2018 and pursued a master of science degree in translational research under his tutelage at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, for a time, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down most research.

“Caroline pivoted and was at the front line, collecting samples and helping with research on SARS-CoV-2 very early in the pandemic,” Dr. Teachey said. “She was able to then pivot back, taking the skills she learned from that work in the pandemic and applying it to what she was doing in the CAR T-cell space and T-ALL.”

Extraordinary gains in pediatric cancer over the past several decades mean that more than 80% of children diagnosed with cancer today will become long-term survivors. “The 20% of the time that we don’t get the result we want is obviously devastating,” Dr. Diorio said. “However, that’s incredibly motivating to try to make better treatments.”

Her current focus is finding a way to use CAR T-cell therapy in children with T-ALL. About 85% of children with T-ALL do well with standard first-line treatments of chemotherapy, but the 15% who relapse or have chemo-refractory disease have a far lower survival rate – less than 30%, Dr. Diorio said.

The problem with autologous CAR T-cell therapy in T-ALL is twofold: It’s difficult to sort out healthy T cells from the cancerous T cells, and the target current re-engineered T-cells go after is on healthy cells, too.

“What happens is a problem called fratricide – basically the CAR T-cells are killing their brothers,” she said. So Dr. Diorio and her colleagues are trying to modify CAR T-cell strategies to target different markers. One target they’re investigating is CD7, but using CRISPR to gene-edit out CD7 from healthy cells requires making two cuts in the DNA.

“Any time you break DNA, you have to repair it, and any time you repair it, there’s a chance of making a mistake,” Dr. Diorio said. So she used a different technique, cytosine-based editing, which requires only one cut. “You put in what you want, and it’s much more precise and less error-prone.” Cytosine-based editing also preserves T cells’ vitality; too many cuts impair T-cell growth, but that doesn’t happen with cytosine-based editing. In August of 2022, Dr. Diorio published a study demonstrating this technique while the team has continued looking for other targets that show up on cancer cells but not on healthy T-cells.

“I’m not invested in one particular strategy,” Dr. Diorio said. “I’m invested in finding a strategy that works for the maximum number of patients.”

That pragmatic approach may be why Dr. Teachey describes her as an out-of-the-box thinker.

“She brings novel ideas to the table, and not everybody who’s a physician-scientist has that ability to really think about taking things in the bench to the bedside and then back again,” Dr. Teachey said. “It’s knowing what questions are important to ask for our patients and how to study those and the research base, so that you can improve treatments for kids with leukemia.”

Their research looks promising so far. Clinical trials are in development for the CD7-targeted CAR T, and they’re collaborating with others on clinical trials for CAR-T targeting another protein, CD38. In the midst of it all, Dr. Diorio remains focused on her patients.

“It’s really a privilege to see the incredible grace people have in these very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Diorio said. “I find it really motivating to try to make things easier for people, and I try to spend every day looking for better treatments so people don’t have to go through that.”

Dr. Diorio has no disclosures. Dr. Teachey has served on the advisory boards of BEAM, Jazz, Janssen, and Sobi and has received research funding from BEAM, Jazz, Servier, and Neoimmune Tech. He has multiple patents pending on CAR-T therapy.

As a toddler undergoing treatment at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont., Caroline Diorio, MD, couldn’t grasp what the nice doctors scurrying in and out of her room were doing. She just knew they were taking care of her.

Dr. Diorio had pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a type of platelet disorder in which the immune system attacks blood platelets for usually unknown reasons.

“I remember very much how worried my parents were,” recalled Dr. Diorio, now a hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And I remember how the tone of the doctor’s voice and the way the doctors communicated provided so much reassurance to my parents.”

Dr. Diorio’s ITP resolved within a few years, but her experience left a lasting impression.

“From that moment on, I don’t remember a time that I didn’t want to be a doctor,” she said. “I had these really formative experiences with doctors who were so lovely, and I thought, ‘I want to do that.’ ”

Though she considered other specialties in medical school at the University of Toronto, Dr. Diorio kept feeling drawn back to pediatric oncology and hematology.

“I have always loved the commitment that parents have to their kids and the team approach that exists,” she said. “Hematology/oncology allowed me to take care of really sick kids but also have this long-term relationship with them and their parents, which I really value and love.”

Dr. Diorio even completed her residency at McMaster alongside one of the same physicians who had cared for her as a child, Ronald Duncan Barr, MD. “It sort of all came full circle,” she said.

Today, Dr. Diorio draws inspiration from memories of her childhood experience. “I try to recreate that and provide as much kindness and compassion as I can for patients and their families, to help when people are in this incredibly vulnerable situation,” she said.

But she takes that even further by researching new therapies for patients who have run out of options, particularly those with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL).

For B-cell ALL and several other blood cancers, an effective option is CAR T-cell therapy, in which physicians collect T-cells from the patient, re-engineer the T cells in the lab so they recognize the proteins expressed on the surface of cancerous cells – called blasts – and then introduce the modified T-cells back into the patient. Once infused, the re-engineered T-cells attack the blasts with the tell-tale proteins.

But with T-ALL, T-cells themselves are infected with cancer, so autologous CAR T-cell therapy is not currently an option, and no allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies have been approved. Dr. Diorio is part of a cutting-edge research team led by David T. Teachey, MD, striving for breakthroughs. “She’s a brilliant clinician, extremely smart and hard-working, exceptional work ethic, great interaction with patients and families with a great bedside manner,” Dr. Teachey said of Dr. Diorio. “She’s just a superstar all around.”

Dr. Teachey first piqued Dr. Diorio’s interest in researching innovative T-ALL therapies when she arrived at CHOP as a hematology/oncology fellow in 2018 and pursued a master of science degree in translational research under his tutelage at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, for a time, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down most research.

“Caroline pivoted and was at the front line, collecting samples and helping with research on SARS-CoV-2 very early in the pandemic,” Dr. Teachey said. “She was able to then pivot back, taking the skills she learned from that work in the pandemic and applying it to what she was doing in the CAR T-cell space and T-ALL.”

Extraordinary gains in pediatric cancer over the past several decades mean that more than 80% of children diagnosed with cancer today will become long-term survivors. “The 20% of the time that we don’t get the result we want is obviously devastating,” Dr. Diorio said. “However, that’s incredibly motivating to try to make better treatments.”

Her current focus is finding a way to use CAR T-cell therapy in children with T-ALL. About 85% of children with T-ALL do well with standard first-line treatments of chemotherapy, but the 15% who relapse or have chemo-refractory disease have a far lower survival rate – less than 30%, Dr. Diorio said.

The problem with autologous CAR T-cell therapy in T-ALL is twofold: It’s difficult to sort out healthy T cells from the cancerous T cells, and the target current re-engineered T-cells go after is on healthy cells, too.

“What happens is a problem called fratricide – basically the CAR T-cells are killing their brothers,” she said. So Dr. Diorio and her colleagues are trying to modify CAR T-cell strategies to target different markers. One target they’re investigating is CD7, but using CRISPR to gene-edit out CD7 from healthy cells requires making two cuts in the DNA.

“Any time you break DNA, you have to repair it, and any time you repair it, there’s a chance of making a mistake,” Dr. Diorio said. So she used a different technique, cytosine-based editing, which requires only one cut. “You put in what you want, and it’s much more precise and less error-prone.” Cytosine-based editing also preserves T cells’ vitality; too many cuts impair T-cell growth, but that doesn’t happen with cytosine-based editing. In August of 2022, Dr. Diorio published a study demonstrating this technique while the team has continued looking for other targets that show up on cancer cells but not on healthy T-cells.

“I’m not invested in one particular strategy,” Dr. Diorio said. “I’m invested in finding a strategy that works for the maximum number of patients.”

That pragmatic approach may be why Dr. Teachey describes her as an out-of-the-box thinker.

“She brings novel ideas to the table, and not everybody who’s a physician-scientist has that ability to really think about taking things in the bench to the bedside and then back again,” Dr. Teachey said. “It’s knowing what questions are important to ask for our patients and how to study those and the research base, so that you can improve treatments for kids with leukemia.”

Their research looks promising so far. Clinical trials are in development for the CD7-targeted CAR T, and they’re collaborating with others on clinical trials for CAR-T targeting another protein, CD38. In the midst of it all, Dr. Diorio remains focused on her patients.

“It’s really a privilege to see the incredible grace people have in these very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Diorio said. “I find it really motivating to try to make things easier for people, and I try to spend every day looking for better treatments so people don’t have to go through that.”

Dr. Diorio has no disclosures. Dr. Teachey has served on the advisory boards of BEAM, Jazz, Janssen, and Sobi and has received research funding from BEAM, Jazz, Servier, and Neoimmune Tech. He has multiple patents pending on CAR-T therapy.

As a toddler undergoing treatment at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont., Caroline Diorio, MD, couldn’t grasp what the nice doctors scurrying in and out of her room were doing. She just knew they were taking care of her.

Dr. Diorio had pediatric immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), a type of platelet disorder in which the immune system attacks blood platelets for usually unknown reasons.

“I remember very much how worried my parents were,” recalled Dr. Diorio, now a hematologist-oncologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “And I remember how the tone of the doctor’s voice and the way the doctors communicated provided so much reassurance to my parents.”

Dr. Diorio’s ITP resolved within a few years, but her experience left a lasting impression.

“From that moment on, I don’t remember a time that I didn’t want to be a doctor,” she said. “I had these really formative experiences with doctors who were so lovely, and I thought, ‘I want to do that.’ ”

Though she considered other specialties in medical school at the University of Toronto, Dr. Diorio kept feeling drawn back to pediatric oncology and hematology.

“I have always loved the commitment that parents have to their kids and the team approach that exists,” she said. “Hematology/oncology allowed me to take care of really sick kids but also have this long-term relationship with them and their parents, which I really value and love.”

Dr. Diorio even completed her residency at McMaster alongside one of the same physicians who had cared for her as a child, Ronald Duncan Barr, MD. “It sort of all came full circle,” she said.

Today, Dr. Diorio draws inspiration from memories of her childhood experience. “I try to recreate that and provide as much kindness and compassion as I can for patients and their families, to help when people are in this incredibly vulnerable situation,” she said.

But she takes that even further by researching new therapies for patients who have run out of options, particularly those with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL).

For B-cell ALL and several other blood cancers, an effective option is CAR T-cell therapy, in which physicians collect T-cells from the patient, re-engineer the T cells in the lab so they recognize the proteins expressed on the surface of cancerous cells – called blasts – and then introduce the modified T-cells back into the patient. Once infused, the re-engineered T-cells attack the blasts with the tell-tale proteins.

But with T-ALL, T-cells themselves are infected with cancer, so autologous CAR T-cell therapy is not currently an option, and no allogeneic CAR T-cell therapies have been approved. Dr. Diorio is part of a cutting-edge research team led by David T. Teachey, MD, striving for breakthroughs. “She’s a brilliant clinician, extremely smart and hard-working, exceptional work ethic, great interaction with patients and families with a great bedside manner,” Dr. Teachey said of Dr. Diorio. “She’s just a superstar all around.”

Dr. Teachey first piqued Dr. Diorio’s interest in researching innovative T-ALL therapies when she arrived at CHOP as a hematology/oncology fellow in 2018 and pursued a master of science degree in translational research under his tutelage at the University of Pennsylvania. Then, for a time, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down most research.

“Caroline pivoted and was at the front line, collecting samples and helping with research on SARS-CoV-2 very early in the pandemic,” Dr. Teachey said. “She was able to then pivot back, taking the skills she learned from that work in the pandemic and applying it to what she was doing in the CAR T-cell space and T-ALL.”

Extraordinary gains in pediatric cancer over the past several decades mean that more than 80% of children diagnosed with cancer today will become long-term survivors. “The 20% of the time that we don’t get the result we want is obviously devastating,” Dr. Diorio said. “However, that’s incredibly motivating to try to make better treatments.”

Her current focus is finding a way to use CAR T-cell therapy in children with T-ALL. About 85% of children with T-ALL do well with standard first-line treatments of chemotherapy, but the 15% who relapse or have chemo-refractory disease have a far lower survival rate – less than 30%, Dr. Diorio said.

The problem with autologous CAR T-cell therapy in T-ALL is twofold: It’s difficult to sort out healthy T cells from the cancerous T cells, and the target current re-engineered T-cells go after is on healthy cells, too.

“What happens is a problem called fratricide – basically the CAR T-cells are killing their brothers,” she said. So Dr. Diorio and her colleagues are trying to modify CAR T-cell strategies to target different markers. One target they’re investigating is CD7, but using CRISPR to gene-edit out CD7 from healthy cells requires making two cuts in the DNA.

“Any time you break DNA, you have to repair it, and any time you repair it, there’s a chance of making a mistake,” Dr. Diorio said. So she used a different technique, cytosine-based editing, which requires only one cut. “You put in what you want, and it’s much more precise and less error-prone.” Cytosine-based editing also preserves T cells’ vitality; too many cuts impair T-cell growth, but that doesn’t happen with cytosine-based editing. In August of 2022, Dr. Diorio published a study demonstrating this technique while the team has continued looking for other targets that show up on cancer cells but not on healthy T-cells.

“I’m not invested in one particular strategy,” Dr. Diorio said. “I’m invested in finding a strategy that works for the maximum number of patients.”

That pragmatic approach may be why Dr. Teachey describes her as an out-of-the-box thinker.

“She brings novel ideas to the table, and not everybody who’s a physician-scientist has that ability to really think about taking things in the bench to the bedside and then back again,” Dr. Teachey said. “It’s knowing what questions are important to ask for our patients and how to study those and the research base, so that you can improve treatments for kids with leukemia.”

Their research looks promising so far. Clinical trials are in development for the CD7-targeted CAR T, and they’re collaborating with others on clinical trials for CAR-T targeting another protein, CD38. In the midst of it all, Dr. Diorio remains focused on her patients.

“It’s really a privilege to see the incredible grace people have in these very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Diorio said. “I find it really motivating to try to make things easier for people, and I try to spend every day looking for better treatments so people don’t have to go through that.”

Dr. Diorio has no disclosures. Dr. Teachey has served on the advisory boards of BEAM, Jazz, Janssen, and Sobi and has received research funding from BEAM, Jazz, Servier, and Neoimmune Tech. He has multiple patents pending on CAR-T therapy.

Test

Test

Test

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio) for use in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have received at least two previous systemic therapies.

This product is a first-in-class bispecific antibody that is designed to target CD20 on the surface of B cells and CD3 on the surface of T cells. This dual targeting activates and redirects a patient’s existing T cells to engage and eliminate target B cells by releasing cytotoxic proteins into the B cells, according to the manufacturer, Genentech.

Mosunetuzumab-axgb is administered as an intravenous infusion for a fixed duration, which allows for time off therapy, and can be infused in an outpatient setting, the company noted.

The drug was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response rate data from the phase 2 GO29781 trial. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the company noted.

The GO29781 study was carried out in individuals with pretreated follicular lymphoma, including those who were at high risk for disease progression or whose disease was refractory to prior therapies.

A complete response was achieved in 60% of patients (54 of 90).

An objective response rate (a combination of complete and partial responses) was seen in 80% of patients who received the drug, with a majority maintaining responses for at least 18 months.

The median duration of response among those who responded was 22.8 months.

Safety data come from 218 patients with hematologic cancers who received mosunetuzumab-axgb at the recommended dose. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (39%), which can be severe and life-threatening. The median duration of cytokine release syndrome events was 3 days (range, 1-29 days). Other common adverse events (≥ 20%) included fatigue, rash, pyrexia, and headache.

“This approval is a significant milestone for people with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, who have had limited treatment options until now,” said Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from the City of Hope, Los Angeles, division of lymphoma, and clinical trial investigator.

Dr. Budde presented data on mosunetuzumab-axgb at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported by this news organization.

She noted that the 60% complete response rate seen with this new drug contrasts with the 14% that has been seen for historical controls.

“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented at the time.

A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization at the time that he was favorably impressed by the findings.

“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University in St. Louis.

“I think as a single agent – if it does get approval – it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he added.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio) for use in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have received at least two previous systemic therapies.

This product is a first-in-class bispecific antibody that is designed to target CD20 on the surface of B cells and CD3 on the surface of T cells. This dual targeting activates and redirects a patient’s existing T cells to engage and eliminate target B cells by releasing cytotoxic proteins into the B cells, according to the manufacturer, Genentech.

Mosunetuzumab-axgb is administered as an intravenous infusion for a fixed duration, which allows for time off therapy, and can be infused in an outpatient setting, the company noted.

The drug was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response rate data from the phase 2 GO29781 trial. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the company noted.

The GO29781 study was carried out in individuals with pretreated follicular lymphoma, including those who were at high risk for disease progression or whose disease was refractory to prior therapies.

A complete response was achieved in 60% of patients (54 of 90).

An objective response rate (a combination of complete and partial responses) was seen in 80% of patients who received the drug, with a majority maintaining responses for at least 18 months.

The median duration of response among those who responded was 22.8 months.

Safety data come from 218 patients with hematologic cancers who received mosunetuzumab-axgb at the recommended dose. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (39%), which can be severe and life-threatening. The median duration of cytokine release syndrome events was 3 days (range, 1-29 days). Other common adverse events (≥ 20%) included fatigue, rash, pyrexia, and headache.

“This approval is a significant milestone for people with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, who have had limited treatment options until now,” said Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from the City of Hope, Los Angeles, division of lymphoma, and clinical trial investigator.

Dr. Budde presented data on mosunetuzumab-axgb at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported by this news organization.

She noted that the 60% complete response rate seen with this new drug contrasts with the 14% that has been seen for historical controls.

“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented at the time.

A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization at the time that he was favorably impressed by the findings.

“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University in St. Louis.

“I think as a single agent – if it does get approval – it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he added.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio) for use in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have received at least two previous systemic therapies.

This product is a first-in-class bispecific antibody that is designed to target CD20 on the surface of B cells and CD3 on the surface of T cells. This dual targeting activates and redirects a patient’s existing T cells to engage and eliminate target B cells by releasing cytotoxic proteins into the B cells, according to the manufacturer, Genentech.

Mosunetuzumab-axgb is administered as an intravenous infusion for a fixed duration, which allows for time off therapy, and can be infused in an outpatient setting, the company noted.

The drug was granted an accelerated approval on the basis of response rate data from the phase 2 GO29781 trial. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, the company noted.

The GO29781 study was carried out in individuals with pretreated follicular lymphoma, including those who were at high risk for disease progression or whose disease was refractory to prior therapies.

A complete response was achieved in 60% of patients (54 of 90).

An objective response rate (a combination of complete and partial responses) was seen in 80% of patients who received the drug, with a majority maintaining responses for at least 18 months.

The median duration of response among those who responded was 22.8 months.

Safety data come from 218 patients with hematologic cancers who received mosunetuzumab-axgb at the recommended dose. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (39%), which can be severe and life-threatening. The median duration of cytokine release syndrome events was 3 days (range, 1-29 days). Other common adverse events (≥ 20%) included fatigue, rash, pyrexia, and headache.

“This approval is a significant milestone for people with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, who have had limited treatment options until now,” said Elizabeth Budde, MD, PhD, from the City of Hope, Los Angeles, division of lymphoma, and clinical trial investigator.

Dr. Budde presented data on mosunetuzumab-axgb at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported by this news organization.

She noted that the 60% complete response rate seen with this new drug contrasts with the 14% that has been seen for historical controls.

“We have seen deep and durable responses in heavily pretreated, high-risk relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma patients with fixed-duration treatment. We also observed a very favorable tolerability profile, with most cytokine release syndrome confined to cycle 1 and low grade, and treatment administration is without mandatory hospitalization,” she commented at the time.

A lymphoma specialist who was not involved in the study told this news organization at the time that he was favorably impressed by the findings.

“To me, the single-agent data looks really outstanding, with a response rate of 80%, a complete response rate of 60%, and a median duration of response of 23 months, and really very acceptable rates of cytokine release syndrome,” commented Brad S. Kahl, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University in St. Louis.

“I think as a single agent – if it does get approval – it will be a really valuable addition to the armamentarium in follicular lymphoma,” he added.

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

“It is one of life’s most self-evident truths that everything fades, that we fear the fading, and that we must live, nonetheless, in the face of the fear.” – Irvin D. Yalom, MD, Existential Psychotherapy, 1980

The email was titled simply, “A sorrowful note,” and I knew that someone had died. I held my breath and read as Dr. Jimmy Potash informed our entire department that Dr. Cait McFarland died in a car accident on December 7 while driving to work at West Cecil Health Center, Conowingo, Md., where she was director of psychiatry.

Sadness swelled as I remembered the outspoken resident who was interested in LGBTQ issues. Cait graduated from the Johns Hopkins residency program in 2020, she had recently married a social worker in the department, and the plan was for her to return to Hopkins full-time in July 2023 to be director of a clinic focused on mental health for people who are transgendered.

Sudden deaths are tragic and jarring and they call to the surface our losses from the past. These deaths don’t stand alone – I found myself thinking of my editor at Medscape, Dr. Bret Stetka, who died unexpectedly in August 2022, and then of Dr. Lidia Palcan Wenz, a psychiatrist I trained with, who died in a motor vehicle accident in 2004. Lidia’s husband also died in the accident, while their two young children in the back seat survived – this tragedy haunted me for some time. None of these people was close to me, but I am no stranger to the impact of unexpected death: My parents and brother all died from cardiac events, and any sudden death is a reminder of those losses.

Julia Riddle, MD, trained with Cait McFarland and was her close friend for years. “I don’t have a belief in ‘the afterlife’ but do like to think of the people that I have lost together in my memory – as if they are all suddenly in a new room together. And, with each loss, all the other occupants of that room come freshly to life again,” Dr. Riddle said.

Death is our shared destination in life, but sudden and unexpected deaths carry their own weight. There is no chance to tie up loose ends, to repair riffs, to say goodbye. Nothing is put in order, and the life that was to be lived goes on for some time as bills arrive, social and work events go unattended, vacations are canceled, and there is the awkward moment of running into someone who didn’t know your loved one has died.

Roger Lewin, MD, is a psychiatrist and writer in Towson, Md. He has both personal and professional experience with sudden death. “There is no way to prepare beforehand, so we have to get ready for what has already happened, and that is hard,” he said. “We invent a life for ourselves and others that extends into the future, and that gets interrupted.”

Most people become ill and die on a vaguely predictable schedule. There may be a chance to plan, to know and honor the wishes of the individual, and often there is the opportunity for loved ones to begin the grieving process gradually as death approaches. For those who are elderly, there may be a sense that this is the natural order of things – which may or may not temper the intensity of the grief for those who remain. If the person has suffered, the end may come with relief.

Still, I sometimes find myself surprised at the length and intensity of anguish that some people experience after losing a loved one who has lived a long and full life, who declined and suffered, but whose absence remains a gaping wound that takes years to form a scar.

Sudden death is not rare; accidents, homicide, and suicide are the top killers among young people, and cardiovascular deaths are number one among those who are older. Natural disasters and terrorist attacks can cause catastrophic numbers of sudden deaths and leave survivors to grieve not only the dead, but the loss of all that was familiar to them.

Psychiatry has been a bit lost as to how we approach grief. We often hear patients talk about anxiety surrounding death and illness, be it a fear of death or a longing for it. These fears can seem irrational – I am reminded of a patient who was afraid to eat romaine because of news reports that it was responsible for food poisoning in other states, but not Maryland, where the person lived. I found it odd that he worried about eating lettuce, but not about smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

But our fears are like that – they move to what the media sensationalizes, or to what may be remote, because otherwise no one would get in a car or clear their walkway of snow. Life is most easily lived with a bit of denial: We shut out the reality that we can be here one moment, overscheduled and overwhelmed, with deadlines, mortgage payments, and summer vacation plans, oblivious to the fact that life may end at any moment. The early months of COVID-19 felt like a global game of Russian roulette, with each venture out a pull of the trigger and everyone’s defenses stripped bare.

While death belongs to us all, we relegate it to the disciplines of religion, philosophy, the arts, and psychology. Religion offers answers – whether a heaven, a hell, or continual reincarnation until the individual attains enlightenment, there is a destination. Perhaps it will be pleasant, perhaps not, and for some there is the hope that one gets to be the driver by having the right beliefs or doing good deeds, while others are comforted by the hope of being reunited with loved ones.

“The suddenness endures and the shock lasts – it’s like a meteor that creates a crater and we revisit it in different ways from different angles,” Dr. Lewin said. “It may leap on us unexpectedly, often many years later.”

Patients talk about death, and when their fears seem unrealistic we may long to reassure them, yet there is no reassurance and psychiatry grasps for how to help. Psychiatry has looked to draw lines for when normal grief crosses to abnormal. Is it an adjustment disorder, complicated grief, “prolonged” grief, pathology in need of medication and medicalization, or something one experiences individually, sometimes for a very long time even with treatment?

One justification for pathologizing “prolonged” reactions includes the fact that insurers will pay for treatment only if there is a diagnosis code, and shouldn’t people in distress be entitled to psychotherapy or medication? Yet there is something offensive about telling someone that they are mentally ill if they don’t grieve along a prescribed timeline, as much as there is about denying them the possible benefits of therapy or medication if they seek it, but are suffering in all the “right” ways. Psychiatry’s approach to death is inelegant at best.

In his poignant podcast series, All There Is, Anderson Cooper is tasked with sorting through his mother’s apartment after her death at age 95. In the course of packing up her belongings, he brings on other guests to talk about their emotional reactions to death. Mr. Cooper’s mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, died at an advanced age, but his father died after a brief cardiac illness when Mr. Cooper was a child, and his brother died by suicide when he was 21. He uses these experiences as a springboard to examine childhood losses, the aftermath of suicide, and the loneliness of grief.

“Loss and grief is this universal experience that we will all go through multiple times in our lives,” Mr. Cooper says, “And yet it leaves us feeling so alone and so separated from other people. At least it does me and has my entire life.”

When we talk about grief and loss, we talk about “getting over it,” or “moving on.” But loss doesn’t work that way – time usually eases the pain, leaving scars that are part of the road map for who we are on the journey that defines us.

Sudden death is hard, and the unexpected death of a young person is tragic. For Cait McFarland, there are the decades she won’t get to experience. For her family and friends, it may be excruciating, and for all the patients who have lost a psychiatrist, may time bring healing and peace.

The Dr. Caitlin McFarland Educational Fund for LGBTQI+ Mental Health is being established, and donations are being accepted at https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-memory-of-cait-mcfarland.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

“It is one of life’s most self-evident truths that everything fades, that we fear the fading, and that we must live, nonetheless, in the face of the fear.” – Irvin D. Yalom, MD, Existential Psychotherapy, 1980

The email was titled simply, “A sorrowful note,” and I knew that someone had died. I held my breath and read as Dr. Jimmy Potash informed our entire department that Dr. Cait McFarland died in a car accident on December 7 while driving to work at West Cecil Health Center, Conowingo, Md., where she was director of psychiatry.

Sadness swelled as I remembered the outspoken resident who was interested in LGBTQ issues. Cait graduated from the Johns Hopkins residency program in 2020, she had recently married a social worker in the department, and the plan was for her to return to Hopkins full-time in July 2023 to be director of a clinic focused on mental health for people who are transgendered.

Sudden deaths are tragic and jarring and they call to the surface our losses from the past. These deaths don’t stand alone – I found myself thinking of my editor at Medscape, Dr. Bret Stetka, who died unexpectedly in August 2022, and then of Dr. Lidia Palcan Wenz, a psychiatrist I trained with, who died in a motor vehicle accident in 2004. Lidia’s husband also died in the accident, while their two young children in the back seat survived – this tragedy haunted me for some time. None of these people was close to me, but I am no stranger to the impact of unexpected death: My parents and brother all died from cardiac events, and any sudden death is a reminder of those losses.

Julia Riddle, MD, trained with Cait McFarland and was her close friend for years. “I don’t have a belief in ‘the afterlife’ but do like to think of the people that I have lost together in my memory – as if they are all suddenly in a new room together. And, with each loss, all the other occupants of that room come freshly to life again,” Dr. Riddle said.

Death is our shared destination in life, but sudden and unexpected deaths carry their own weight. There is no chance to tie up loose ends, to repair riffs, to say goodbye. Nothing is put in order, and the life that was to be lived goes on for some time as bills arrive, social and work events go unattended, vacations are canceled, and there is the awkward moment of running into someone who didn’t know your loved one has died.

Roger Lewin, MD, is a psychiatrist and writer in Towson, Md. He has both personal and professional experience with sudden death. “There is no way to prepare beforehand, so we have to get ready for what has already happened, and that is hard,” he said. “We invent a life for ourselves and others that extends into the future, and that gets interrupted.”

Most people become ill and die on a vaguely predictable schedule. There may be a chance to plan, to know and honor the wishes of the individual, and often there is the opportunity for loved ones to begin the grieving process gradually as death approaches. For those who are elderly, there may be a sense that this is the natural order of things – which may or may not temper the intensity of the grief for those who remain. If the person has suffered, the end may come with relief.

Still, I sometimes find myself surprised at the length and intensity of anguish that some people experience after losing a loved one who has lived a long and full life, who declined and suffered, but whose absence remains a gaping wound that takes years to form a scar.

Sudden death is not rare; accidents, homicide, and suicide are the top killers among young people, and cardiovascular deaths are number one among those who are older. Natural disasters and terrorist attacks can cause catastrophic numbers of sudden deaths and leave survivors to grieve not only the dead, but the loss of all that was familiar to them.

Psychiatry has been a bit lost as to how we approach grief. We often hear patients talk about anxiety surrounding death and illness, be it a fear of death or a longing for it. These fears can seem irrational – I am reminded of a patient who was afraid to eat romaine because of news reports that it was responsible for food poisoning in other states, but not Maryland, where the person lived. I found it odd that he worried about eating lettuce, but not about smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

But our fears are like that – they move to what the media sensationalizes, or to what may be remote, because otherwise no one would get in a car or clear their walkway of snow. Life is most easily lived with a bit of denial: We shut out the reality that we can be here one moment, overscheduled and overwhelmed, with deadlines, mortgage payments, and summer vacation plans, oblivious to the fact that life may end at any moment. The early months of COVID-19 felt like a global game of Russian roulette, with each venture out a pull of the trigger and everyone’s defenses stripped bare.

While death belongs to us all, we relegate it to the disciplines of religion, philosophy, the arts, and psychology. Religion offers answers – whether a heaven, a hell, or continual reincarnation until the individual attains enlightenment, there is a destination. Perhaps it will be pleasant, perhaps not, and for some there is the hope that one gets to be the driver by having the right beliefs or doing good deeds, while others are comforted by the hope of being reunited with loved ones.

“The suddenness endures and the shock lasts – it’s like a meteor that creates a crater and we revisit it in different ways from different angles,” Dr. Lewin said. “It may leap on us unexpectedly, often many years later.”

Patients talk about death, and when their fears seem unrealistic we may long to reassure them, yet there is no reassurance and psychiatry grasps for how to help. Psychiatry has looked to draw lines for when normal grief crosses to abnormal. Is it an adjustment disorder, complicated grief, “prolonged” grief, pathology in need of medication and medicalization, or something one experiences individually, sometimes for a very long time even with treatment?

One justification for pathologizing “prolonged” reactions includes the fact that insurers will pay for treatment only if there is a diagnosis code, and shouldn’t people in distress be entitled to psychotherapy or medication? Yet there is something offensive about telling someone that they are mentally ill if they don’t grieve along a prescribed timeline, as much as there is about denying them the possible benefits of therapy or medication if they seek it, but are suffering in all the “right” ways. Psychiatry’s approach to death is inelegant at best.

In his poignant podcast series, All There Is, Anderson Cooper is tasked with sorting through his mother’s apartment after her death at age 95. In the course of packing up her belongings, he brings on other guests to talk about their emotional reactions to death. Mr. Cooper’s mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, died at an advanced age, but his father died after a brief cardiac illness when Mr. Cooper was a child, and his brother died by suicide when he was 21. He uses these experiences as a springboard to examine childhood losses, the aftermath of suicide, and the loneliness of grief.

“Loss and grief is this universal experience that we will all go through multiple times in our lives,” Mr. Cooper says, “And yet it leaves us feeling so alone and so separated from other people. At least it does me and has my entire life.”

When we talk about grief and loss, we talk about “getting over it,” or “moving on.” But loss doesn’t work that way – time usually eases the pain, leaving scars that are part of the road map for who we are on the journey that defines us.

Sudden death is hard, and the unexpected death of a young person is tragic. For Cait McFarland, there are the decades she won’t get to experience. For her family and friends, it may be excruciating, and for all the patients who have lost a psychiatrist, may time bring healing and peace.

The Dr. Caitlin McFarland Educational Fund for LGBTQI+ Mental Health is being established, and donations are being accepted at https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-memory-of-cait-mcfarland.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

“It is one of life’s most self-evident truths that everything fades, that we fear the fading, and that we must live, nonetheless, in the face of the fear.” – Irvin D. Yalom, MD, Existential Psychotherapy, 1980

The email was titled simply, “A sorrowful note,” and I knew that someone had died. I held my breath and read as Dr. Jimmy Potash informed our entire department that Dr. Cait McFarland died in a car accident on December 7 while driving to work at West Cecil Health Center, Conowingo, Md., where she was director of psychiatry.

Sadness swelled as I remembered the outspoken resident who was interested in LGBTQ issues. Cait graduated from the Johns Hopkins residency program in 2020, she had recently married a social worker in the department, and the plan was for her to return to Hopkins full-time in July 2023 to be director of a clinic focused on mental health for people who are transgendered.

Sudden deaths are tragic and jarring and they call to the surface our losses from the past. These deaths don’t stand alone – I found myself thinking of my editor at Medscape, Dr. Bret Stetka, who died unexpectedly in August 2022, and then of Dr. Lidia Palcan Wenz, a psychiatrist I trained with, who died in a motor vehicle accident in 2004. Lidia’s husband also died in the accident, while their two young children in the back seat survived – this tragedy haunted me for some time. None of these people was close to me, but I am no stranger to the impact of unexpected death: My parents and brother all died from cardiac events, and any sudden death is a reminder of those losses.

Julia Riddle, MD, trained with Cait McFarland and was her close friend for years. “I don’t have a belief in ‘the afterlife’ but do like to think of the people that I have lost together in my memory – as if they are all suddenly in a new room together. And, with each loss, all the other occupants of that room come freshly to life again,” Dr. Riddle said.

Death is our shared destination in life, but sudden and unexpected deaths carry their own weight. There is no chance to tie up loose ends, to repair riffs, to say goodbye. Nothing is put in order, and the life that was to be lived goes on for some time as bills arrive, social and work events go unattended, vacations are canceled, and there is the awkward moment of running into someone who didn’t know your loved one has died.

Roger Lewin, MD, is a psychiatrist and writer in Towson, Md. He has both personal and professional experience with sudden death. “There is no way to prepare beforehand, so we have to get ready for what has already happened, and that is hard,” he said. “We invent a life for ourselves and others that extends into the future, and that gets interrupted.”

Most people become ill and die on a vaguely predictable schedule. There may be a chance to plan, to know and honor the wishes of the individual, and often there is the opportunity for loved ones to begin the grieving process gradually as death approaches. For those who are elderly, there may be a sense that this is the natural order of things – which may or may not temper the intensity of the grief for those who remain. If the person has suffered, the end may come with relief.

Still, I sometimes find myself surprised at the length and intensity of anguish that some people experience after losing a loved one who has lived a long and full life, who declined and suffered, but whose absence remains a gaping wound that takes years to form a scar.

Sudden death is not rare; accidents, homicide, and suicide are the top killers among young people, and cardiovascular deaths are number one among those who are older. Natural disasters and terrorist attacks can cause catastrophic numbers of sudden deaths and leave survivors to grieve not only the dead, but the loss of all that was familiar to them.

Psychiatry has been a bit lost as to how we approach grief. We often hear patients talk about anxiety surrounding death and illness, be it a fear of death or a longing for it. These fears can seem irrational – I am reminded of a patient who was afraid to eat romaine because of news reports that it was responsible for food poisoning in other states, but not Maryland, where the person lived. I found it odd that he worried about eating lettuce, but not about smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

But our fears are like that – they move to what the media sensationalizes, or to what may be remote, because otherwise no one would get in a car or clear their walkway of snow. Life is most easily lived with a bit of denial: We shut out the reality that we can be here one moment, overscheduled and overwhelmed, with deadlines, mortgage payments, and summer vacation plans, oblivious to the fact that life may end at any moment. The early months of COVID-19 felt like a global game of Russian roulette, with each venture out a pull of the trigger and everyone’s defenses stripped bare.

While death belongs to us all, we relegate it to the disciplines of religion, philosophy, the arts, and psychology. Religion offers answers – whether a heaven, a hell, or continual reincarnation until the individual attains enlightenment, there is a destination. Perhaps it will be pleasant, perhaps not, and for some there is the hope that one gets to be the driver by having the right beliefs or doing good deeds, while others are comforted by the hope of being reunited with loved ones.

“The suddenness endures and the shock lasts – it’s like a meteor that creates a crater and we revisit it in different ways from different angles,” Dr. Lewin said. “It may leap on us unexpectedly, often many years later.”

Patients talk about death, and when their fears seem unrealistic we may long to reassure them, yet there is no reassurance and psychiatry grasps for how to help. Psychiatry has looked to draw lines for when normal grief crosses to abnormal. Is it an adjustment disorder, complicated grief, “prolonged” grief, pathology in need of medication and medicalization, or something one experiences individually, sometimes for a very long time even with treatment?

One justification for pathologizing “prolonged” reactions includes the fact that insurers will pay for treatment only if there is a diagnosis code, and shouldn’t people in distress be entitled to psychotherapy or medication? Yet there is something offensive about telling someone that they are mentally ill if they don’t grieve along a prescribed timeline, as much as there is about denying them the possible benefits of therapy or medication if they seek it, but are suffering in all the “right” ways. Psychiatry’s approach to death is inelegant at best.

In his poignant podcast series, All There Is, Anderson Cooper is tasked with sorting through his mother’s apartment after her death at age 95. In the course of packing up her belongings, he brings on other guests to talk about their emotional reactions to death. Mr. Cooper’s mother, Gloria Vanderbilt, died at an advanced age, but his father died after a brief cardiac illness when Mr. Cooper was a child, and his brother died by suicide when he was 21. He uses these experiences as a springboard to examine childhood losses, the aftermath of suicide, and the loneliness of grief.

“Loss and grief is this universal experience that we will all go through multiple times in our lives,” Mr. Cooper says, “And yet it leaves us feeling so alone and so separated from other people. At least it does me and has my entire life.”

When we talk about grief and loss, we talk about “getting over it,” or “moving on.” But loss doesn’t work that way – time usually eases the pain, leaving scars that are part of the road map for who we are on the journey that defines us.

Sudden death is hard, and the unexpected death of a young person is tragic. For Cait McFarland, there are the decades she won’t get to experience. For her family and friends, it may be excruciating, and for all the patients who have lost a psychiatrist, may time bring healing and peace.

The Dr. Caitlin McFarland Educational Fund for LGBTQI+ Mental Health is being established, and donations are being accepted at https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-memory-of-cait-mcfarland.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.