SAN DIEGO – Pilonidal disease – a chronic inflammatory condition that can trigger the formation of cysts and sinuses in the superior portion of the intragluteal cleft or the sacrococcygeal area – remains challenging to manage, but mounting evidence supports the use of lasers to enhance treatment success.

“Draining sinuses or acute abscesses are usually associated with an underlying cyst and associated granulation tissue, fibrosis, and tufts of hair,” Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This is why laser hair removal can help with the treatment of these patients.”

The suspected etiology is a foreign body reaction to the entrapped hairs, which are found in the sinuses in about 75% of cases. “The treatment for that is surgery,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist in Boston. Laser hair reduction decreases the recurrence of cyst formation and drainage, and is usually covered by insurance, she noted.
 

Supportive evidence

In a comparative study, French researchers retrospectively reviewed the efficacy of laser hair removal after surgery in reducing recurrence rate of pilonidal cysts, versus surgery alone. Of the 41 study participants, 12 had laser hair removal plus surgery and 29 had surgery alone. The rate of cyst recurrence was significantly lower in the laser hair removal plus surgery group, compared with the surgery only group (8.3% vs. 51.7%, respectively; P < .001).

In another study, researchers from the United Kingdom and The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, evaluated the use of the long-pulsed Alexandrite laser in 19 patients with recurrent pilonidal disease who had undergone multiple surgeries.They were treated with the laser for hair removal in the sinus area, requiring 4-12 sessions. The researchers found that 84.2% of patients had a reduction of hair density to less than 5 hairs/cm², while 15.8% had a reduction of hair density to 5-10 hairs/cm^2. They also noted a statistically significant increase in disease-free time in the laser-treated group compared with those treated with surgical management only (P < .01).
 

Lasers for pseudofolliculitis barbae, HS

Lasers also play a significant role in the treatment of pseudofolliculitis barbae, a chronic, inflammatory disease that primarily affects the bearded area of men with thick hairs, usually those with a darker Fitzpatrick skin type. This can also occur in women, particularly those with polycystic ovary syndrome, Dr. DiGiorgio said.

In people with pseudofolliculitis barbae, the hair follicle is positioned at an acute angle to the skin surface and the sharp end of shaved hair reenters the skin, which results in the formation of pustules, papules, secondary infection, and keloids. Treatment involves a variety of medical therapies including retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, and keratolytics, “but laser hair removal is the best way to get rid of this issue, and results in permanent reduction,” she said. “When treating male patients with laser hair removal in the bearded area, you have to tell them that they won’t be able to grow a beard going forward. Most of them are okay with that.”

A 2002 study, led by E. Victor Ross, MD, of the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, evaluated treatment of pseudofolliculitis barbae in patients with skin types IV, V, and VI with a long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser. For the first phase of the study, the investigators tested epidermal tolerance on the thighs of 37 patients and determined that the laser was safe and effective. For the second phase 2 weeks later, they treated a 15x15-mm submental area with the highest fluence tolerated in phase 1 of the trial and used an adjacent site as the control.

After 90 days, the mean papule count was 6.95 for the control site compared with 1 for the laser-treated site. The researchers observed that miniaturization and elimination of hair shafts resulted in decreased inflamed papules. “We know that this works,” Dr. DiGiorgio said.

In another study from investigators at the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, 22 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who had pseudofolliculitis barbae underwent 5 weekly treatments with a 1,064 nm Nd:YAG laser. Topical anesthesia was not used, and 10 evaluators used a Global Assessment Scale (GAS) to assess treatment success from photos taken at baseline and at 4 weeks. At 4 weeks, 11 patients demonstrated 83% improvement on the GAS (P < .01), the investigators reported.

Laser and energy-based treatments can also be used to treat hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic condition that affects apocrine gland–bearing skin. “The hypothesized pathogenesis is that it’s an inflammatory disorder of the hair follicle, where the follicle rupture introduces its contents into the surrounding dermis,” Dr. DiGiorgio said. “The skin reacts with a chemotactic response and abscess formation. This results in inflammatory nodules and sterile abscesses, which can lead to sinus tracts and hypertrophic scars and chronic drainage, which can be foul-smelling. This frequently leads to depression and psychological distress for the patients.”

Possible laser and energy-based treatments for HS include follicular destruction with the Nd:YAG laser, the diode laser, the Alexandrite laser, microwave technology, or intense pulsed light, she said. Microwave technology or radiofrequency can be used for sweat gland destruction, while CO₂ lasers can be used to debulk tissue, and the ablative fractional CO₂ laser can be used to reduce scarring and improve range of motion.

In a prospective, randomized, intraindividual comparative trial conducted at eight centers in France, researchers evaluated the use of a long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser to treat 36 patients with mild to moderate HS; 27 had inguinal disease and 9 had axillary disease. They received four laser treatments at 6-week intervals; laser settings varied depending on the patient skin type.

At 1 month, there was a significant reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions on the areas treated with lasers, compared to the untreated areas, but the difference was not significant at 3 months. There was no significant difference in the number of flares between the treated and untreated sites at 1 or 3 months.

In a separate study, researchers found that the Nd:YAG laser in combination with topical benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin was significantly more effective than topical benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin alone for the treatment of HS in 22 patients with Hurley stage II disease. The patients received monthly treatments for 4 months and were followed up 2 months after the last treatment; the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Area and Severity Index was used to measure treatment response.

Statistically significant improvements were observed in the inguinal and axillary areas but not in the inframammary areas. Most patients (90%) reported less frequent breakouts while 10% reported no change. “In addition, 92% of subjects felt that the use of laser was more effective than other treatments they had tried but 8% stated it was equal to the other treatments they had tried,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, who was not affiliated with the study. “The researchers noted continued improvement with subsequent laser sessions,” she added.

According to 2019 guidelines from the United States and Canadian HS Foundations on the management of HS – in the section on light, laser, and energy sources – an Nd:YAG laser is recommended in patients with Hurley stage II or III disease on the basis of randomized, controlled trials and case series data, and in patients with Hurley stage I disease based on expert consensus. “Other wavelengths that are used for follicular destruction are recommended on the basis of lower-quality evidence,” the recommendations state.

The guidelines also state that CO₂ laser excision “is recommended in patients with Hurley stage II or III disease with fibrotic sinus tracts” while “external beam radiation and PDT have a limited role in the management of patients with HS.”

Dr. DiGiorgio reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Pilonidal disease – a chronic inflammatory condition that can trigger the formation of cysts and sinuses in the superior portion of the intragluteal cleft or the sacrococcygeal area – remains challenging to manage, but mounting evidence supports the use of lasers to enhance treatment success.

“Draining sinuses or acute abscesses are usually associated with an underlying cyst and associated granulation tissue, fibrosis, and tufts of hair,” Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This is why laser hair removal can help with the treatment of these patients.”

The suspected etiology is a foreign body reaction to the entrapped hairs, which are found in the sinuses in about 75% of cases. “The treatment for that is surgery,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist in Boston. Laser hair reduction decreases the recurrence of cyst formation and drainage, and is usually covered by insurance, she noted.
 

Supportive evidence

In a comparative study, French researchers retrospectively reviewed the efficacy of laser hair removal after surgery in reducing recurrence rate of pilonidal cysts, versus surgery alone. Of the 41 study participants, 12 had laser hair removal plus surgery and 29 had surgery alone. The rate of cyst recurrence was significantly lower in the laser hair removal plus surgery group, compared with the surgery only group (8.3% vs. 51.7%, respectively; P < .001).

In another study, researchers from the United Kingdom and The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, evaluated the use of the long-pulsed Alexandrite laser in 19 patients with recurrent pilonidal disease who had undergone multiple surgeries.They were treated with the laser for hair removal in the sinus area, requiring 4-12 sessions. The researchers found that 84.2% of patients had a reduction of hair density to less than 5 hairs/cm², while 15.8% had a reduction of hair density to 5-10 hairs/cm^2. They also noted a statistically significant increase in disease-free time in the laser-treated group compared with those treated with surgical management only (P < .01).
 

Lasers for pseudofolliculitis barbae, HS

Lasers also play a significant role in the treatment of pseudofolliculitis barbae, a chronic, inflammatory disease that primarily affects the bearded area of men with thick hairs, usually those with a darker Fitzpatrick skin type. This can also occur in women, particularly those with polycystic ovary syndrome, Dr. DiGiorgio said.

In people with pseudofolliculitis barbae, the hair follicle is positioned at an acute angle to the skin surface and the sharp end of shaved hair reenters the skin, which results in the formation of pustules, papules, secondary infection, and keloids. Treatment involves a variety of medical therapies including retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, and keratolytics, “but laser hair removal is the best way to get rid of this issue, and results in permanent reduction,” she said. “When treating male patients with laser hair removal in the bearded area, you have to tell them that they won’t be able to grow a beard going forward. Most of them are okay with that.”

A 2002 study, led by E. Victor Ross, MD, of the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, evaluated treatment of pseudofolliculitis barbae in patients with skin types IV, V, and VI with a long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser. For the first phase of the study, the investigators tested epidermal tolerance on the thighs of 37 patients and determined that the laser was safe and effective. For the second phase 2 weeks later, they treated a 15x15-mm submental area with the highest fluence tolerated in phase 1 of the trial and used an adjacent site as the control.

After 90 days, the mean papule count was 6.95 for the control site compared with 1 for the laser-treated site. The researchers observed that miniaturization and elimination of hair shafts resulted in decreased inflamed papules. “We know that this works,” Dr. DiGiorgio said.

In another study from investigators at the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, 22 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who had pseudofolliculitis barbae underwent 5 weekly treatments with a 1,064 nm Nd:YAG laser. Topical anesthesia was not used, and 10 evaluators used a Global Assessment Scale (GAS) to assess treatment success from photos taken at baseline and at 4 weeks. At 4 weeks, 11 patients demonstrated 83% improvement on the GAS (P < .01), the investigators reported.

Laser and energy-based treatments can also be used to treat hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic condition that affects apocrine gland–bearing skin. “The hypothesized pathogenesis is that it’s an inflammatory disorder of the hair follicle, where the follicle rupture introduces its contents into the surrounding dermis,” Dr. DiGiorgio said. “The skin reacts with a chemotactic response and abscess formation. This results in inflammatory nodules and sterile abscesses, which can lead to sinus tracts and hypertrophic scars and chronic drainage, which can be foul-smelling. This frequently leads to depression and psychological distress for the patients.”

Possible laser and energy-based treatments for HS include follicular destruction with the Nd:YAG laser, the diode laser, the Alexandrite laser, microwave technology, or intense pulsed light, she said. Microwave technology or radiofrequency can be used for sweat gland destruction, while CO₂ lasers can be used to debulk tissue, and the ablative fractional CO₂ laser can be used to reduce scarring and improve range of motion.

In a prospective, randomized, intraindividual comparative trial conducted at eight centers in France, researchers evaluated the use of a long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser to treat 36 patients with mild to moderate HS; 27 had inguinal disease and 9 had axillary disease. They received four laser treatments at 6-week intervals; laser settings varied depending on the patient skin type.

At 1 month, there was a significant reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions on the areas treated with lasers, compared to the untreated areas, but the difference was not significant at 3 months. There was no significant difference in the number of flares between the treated and untreated sites at 1 or 3 months.

In a separate study, researchers found that the Nd:YAG laser in combination with topical benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin was significantly more effective than topical benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin alone for the treatment of HS in 22 patients with Hurley stage II disease. The patients received monthly treatments for 4 months and were followed up 2 months after the last treatment; the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Area and Severity Index was used to measure treatment response.

Statistically significant improvements were observed in the inguinal and axillary areas but not in the inframammary areas. Most patients (90%) reported less frequent breakouts while 10% reported no change. “In addition, 92% of subjects felt that the use of laser was more effective than other treatments they had tried but 8% stated it was equal to the other treatments they had tried,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, who was not affiliated with the study. “The researchers noted continued improvement with subsequent laser sessions,” she added.

According to 2019 guidelines from the United States and Canadian HS Foundations on the management of HS – in the section on light, laser, and energy sources – an Nd:YAG laser is recommended in patients with Hurley stage II or III disease on the basis of randomized, controlled trials and case series data, and in patients with Hurley stage I disease based on expert consensus. “Other wavelengths that are used for follicular destruction are recommended on the basis of lower-quality evidence,” the recommendations state.

The guidelines also state that CO₂ laser excision “is recommended in patients with Hurley stage II or III disease with fibrotic sinus tracts” while “external beam radiation and PDT have a limited role in the management of patients with HS.”

Dr. DiGiorgio reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Pilonidal disease – a chronic inflammatory condition that can trigger the formation of cysts and sinuses in the superior portion of the intragluteal cleft or the sacrococcygeal area – remains challenging to manage, but mounting evidence supports the use of lasers to enhance treatment success.

“Draining sinuses or acute abscesses are usually associated with an underlying cyst and associated granulation tissue, fibrosis, and tufts of hair,” Catherine M. DiGiorgio, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This is why laser hair removal can help with the treatment of these patients.”

The suspected etiology is a foreign body reaction to the entrapped hairs, which are found in the sinuses in about 75% of cases. “The treatment for that is surgery,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, a laser and cosmetic dermatologist in Boston. Laser hair reduction decreases the recurrence of cyst formation and drainage, and is usually covered by insurance, she noted.
 

Supportive evidence

In a comparative study, French researchers retrospectively reviewed the efficacy of laser hair removal after surgery in reducing recurrence rate of pilonidal cysts, versus surgery alone. Of the 41 study participants, 12 had laser hair removal plus surgery and 29 had surgery alone. The rate of cyst recurrence was significantly lower in the laser hair removal plus surgery group, compared with the surgery only group (8.3% vs. 51.7%, respectively; P < .001).

In another study, researchers from the United Kingdom and The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, evaluated the use of the long-pulsed Alexandrite laser in 19 patients with recurrent pilonidal disease who had undergone multiple surgeries.They were treated with the laser for hair removal in the sinus area, requiring 4-12 sessions. The researchers found that 84.2% of patients had a reduction of hair density to less than 5 hairs/cm², while 15.8% had a reduction of hair density to 5-10 hairs/cm^2. They also noted a statistically significant increase in disease-free time in the laser-treated group compared with those treated with surgical management only (P < .01).
 

Lasers for pseudofolliculitis barbae, HS

Lasers also play a significant role in the treatment of pseudofolliculitis barbae, a chronic, inflammatory disease that primarily affects the bearded area of men with thick hairs, usually those with a darker Fitzpatrick skin type. This can also occur in women, particularly those with polycystic ovary syndrome, Dr. DiGiorgio said.

In people with pseudofolliculitis barbae, the hair follicle is positioned at an acute angle to the skin surface and the sharp end of shaved hair reenters the skin, which results in the formation of pustules, papules, secondary infection, and keloids. Treatment involves a variety of medical therapies including retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, and keratolytics, “but laser hair removal is the best way to get rid of this issue, and results in permanent reduction,” she said. “When treating male patients with laser hair removal in the bearded area, you have to tell them that they won’t be able to grow a beard going forward. Most of them are okay with that.”

A 2002 study, led by E. Victor Ross, MD, of the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, evaluated treatment of pseudofolliculitis barbae in patients with skin types IV, V, and VI with a long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser. For the first phase of the study, the investigators tested epidermal tolerance on the thighs of 37 patients and determined that the laser was safe and effective. For the second phase 2 weeks later, they treated a 15x15-mm submental area with the highest fluence tolerated in phase 1 of the trial and used an adjacent site as the control.

After 90 days, the mean papule count was 6.95 for the control site compared with 1 for the laser-treated site. The researchers observed that miniaturization and elimination of hair shafts resulted in decreased inflamed papules. “We know that this works,” Dr. DiGiorgio said.

In another study from investigators at the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, 22 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who had pseudofolliculitis barbae underwent 5 weekly treatments with a 1,064 nm Nd:YAG laser. Topical anesthesia was not used, and 10 evaluators used a Global Assessment Scale (GAS) to assess treatment success from photos taken at baseline and at 4 weeks. At 4 weeks, 11 patients demonstrated 83% improvement on the GAS (P < .01), the investigators reported.

Laser and energy-based treatments can also be used to treat hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic condition that affects apocrine gland–bearing skin. “The hypothesized pathogenesis is that it’s an inflammatory disorder of the hair follicle, where the follicle rupture introduces its contents into the surrounding dermis,” Dr. DiGiorgio said. “The skin reacts with a chemotactic response and abscess formation. This results in inflammatory nodules and sterile abscesses, which can lead to sinus tracts and hypertrophic scars and chronic drainage, which can be foul-smelling. This frequently leads to depression and psychological distress for the patients.”

Possible laser and energy-based treatments for HS include follicular destruction with the Nd:YAG laser, the diode laser, the Alexandrite laser, microwave technology, or intense pulsed light, she said. Microwave technology or radiofrequency can be used for sweat gland destruction, while CO₂ lasers can be used to debulk tissue, and the ablative fractional CO₂ laser can be used to reduce scarring and improve range of motion.

In a prospective, randomized, intraindividual comparative trial conducted at eight centers in France, researchers evaluated the use of a long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser to treat 36 patients with mild to moderate HS; 27 had inguinal disease and 9 had axillary disease. They received four laser treatments at 6-week intervals; laser settings varied depending on the patient skin type.

At 1 month, there was a significant reduction in the number of inflammatory lesions on the areas treated with lasers, compared to the untreated areas, but the difference was not significant at 3 months. There was no significant difference in the number of flares between the treated and untreated sites at 1 or 3 months.

In a separate study, researchers found that the Nd:YAG laser in combination with topical benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin was significantly more effective than topical benzoyl peroxide and clindamycin alone for the treatment of HS in 22 patients with Hurley stage II disease. The patients received monthly treatments for 4 months and were followed up 2 months after the last treatment; the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Area and Severity Index was used to measure treatment response.

Statistically significant improvements were observed in the inguinal and axillary areas but not in the inframammary areas. Most patients (90%) reported less frequent breakouts while 10% reported no change. “In addition, 92% of subjects felt that the use of laser was more effective than other treatments they had tried but 8% stated it was equal to the other treatments they had tried,” said Dr. DiGiorgio, who was not affiliated with the study. “The researchers noted continued improvement with subsequent laser sessions,” she added.

According to 2019 guidelines from the United States and Canadian HS Foundations on the management of HS – in the section on light, laser, and energy sources – an Nd:YAG laser is recommended in patients with Hurley stage II or III disease on the basis of randomized, controlled trials and case series data, and in patients with Hurley stage I disease based on expert consensus. “Other wavelengths that are used for follicular destruction are recommended on the basis of lower-quality evidence,” the recommendations state.

The guidelines also state that CO₂ laser excision “is recommended in patients with Hurley stage II or III disease with fibrotic sinus tracts” while “external beam radiation and PDT have a limited role in the management of patients with HS.”

Dr. DiGiorgio reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Using the ablative fractional laser and other wounding therapies to destroy actinic keratoses (AKs) as a way to prevent skin cancer appears to spark other beneficial effects on skin biology, according to Molly Wanner, MD, MBA.

As a case in point, Dr. Wanner discussed the results of a trial of 48 people over aged 60 years with actinic damage, who received ablative fractional laser treatment on one arm and no treatment on the other arm, which served as the control. At 24 months, only two nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) developed on the treated arms, compared with 26 on the treated arms.

“What I find interesting is that the treated arm did not develop basal cell carcinoma, only squamous cell carcinoma,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “It appears that this is working through more than just treatment of the AK precursor lesions, for which fractional lasers are cleared for use. It appears to impact both types of NMSCs.”

The ablative fractional laser and other wounding therapies can modulate a response to UV light – a process that naturally diminishes with age, according to Dr. Wanner, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center in Boston. “This ability to repair DNA is actually modulated by insulin-like growth factor 1,” she said. “IGF-1 is produced by papillary dermal fibroblasts and communicates with keratinocytes. If keratinocytes are exposed to UV light and there is no IGF-1 around, you get a mutated cell, and that keeps spreading, and you could potentially get a skin cancer.”

On the other hand, she continued, if IGF-1 is injected around the keratinocytes, they are able to respond. “Keratinocytes, which are the most superficial layer of the skin, are really active,” noted Dr. Wanner, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They’re dividing and replicating, whereas fibroblasts are more non-proliferative and more long-lived. They stick around for a long time. I think of them as the adults in the room, giving these new keratinocytes direction.”

In a review of wounding therapies for the prevention of photocarcinogenesis, she and her coauthors noted that IGF-1 increases nucleotide excision repair of damaged DNA, promotes checkpoint signaling and suppression of DNA synthesis, favors specialized polymerases that are better able to repair DNA damage, and enhances p53-dependent transcriptional responses to DNA damage.

“Older fibroblasts produce less IGF-1 and lead to a situation where keratinocytes can grow unchecked,” she said. “We can use fractional laser to help with this. Fractional laser increases fibroblast production and decreases senescent fibroblasts.”

In a 2017 review on the impact of age and IGF-1 on DNA damage responses in UV-irradiated skin, the authors noted the high levels of IGF-1 in the skin of younger individuals and lower levels in the skin of their older counterparts.

“But once older skin has been treated with either dermabrasion or fractional laser, the levels of IGF-1 are restored to that of a young adult,” Dr. Wanner said. “The restoration of IGF-1 then restores that level of appropriate response to UV light. So, what’s interesting is that fractional lasers treat more than a fraction [of skin]. Fractional lasers were developed to have an easier way to improve wound healing by leaving the skin intact around these columns [of treated skin]. It turns out that treatment of these columns of skin does not just impact the cells in that area. There is a true global effect that’s allowing us to almost normalize skin.”

Dr. Wanner now thinks of fractional lasers as stimulating a laser-cell biology interaction, not just a laser-tissue interaction. “It’s incredible that we can use these photons to not only impact the tissue itself but how the cells actually respond,” she said. “What’s going to be interesting for us in the next few years is to look at how lasers impact our cellular biology. How can we harness it to help our patients?”

She and her colleagues are conducting a trial of different wounding modalities to assess their impact on IGF-1. “Does depth matter? Does density matter? Does the wavelength matter?” she asked. “The bottom line is, it turns out that when the skin looks healthier, it is healthier. Cosmetic treatments can impact medical outcomes.”

Dr. Wanner disclosed that she is a consultant and advisor to Nu Skin. She has also received research funding and equipment from Solta.

SAN DIEGO – Using the ablative fractional laser and other wounding therapies to destroy actinic keratoses (AKs) as a way to prevent skin cancer appears to spark other beneficial effects on skin biology, according to Molly Wanner, MD, MBA.

As a case in point, Dr. Wanner discussed the results of a trial of 48 people over aged 60 years with actinic damage, who received ablative fractional laser treatment on one arm and no treatment on the other arm, which served as the control. At 24 months, only two nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) developed on the treated arms, compared with 26 on the treated arms.

“What I find interesting is that the treated arm did not develop basal cell carcinoma, only squamous cell carcinoma,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “It appears that this is working through more than just treatment of the AK precursor lesions, for which fractional lasers are cleared for use. It appears to impact both types of NMSCs.”

The ablative fractional laser and other wounding therapies can modulate a response to UV light – a process that naturally diminishes with age, according to Dr. Wanner, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center in Boston. “This ability to repair DNA is actually modulated by insulin-like growth factor 1,” she said. “IGF-1 is produced by papillary dermal fibroblasts and communicates with keratinocytes. If keratinocytes are exposed to UV light and there is no IGF-1 around, you get a mutated cell, and that keeps spreading, and you could potentially get a skin cancer.”

On the other hand, she continued, if IGF-1 is injected around the keratinocytes, they are able to respond. “Keratinocytes, which are the most superficial layer of the skin, are really active,” noted Dr. Wanner, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They’re dividing and replicating, whereas fibroblasts are more non-proliferative and more long-lived. They stick around for a long time. I think of them as the adults in the room, giving these new keratinocytes direction.”

In a review of wounding therapies for the prevention of photocarcinogenesis, she and her coauthors noted that IGF-1 increases nucleotide excision repair of damaged DNA, promotes checkpoint signaling and suppression of DNA synthesis, favors specialized polymerases that are better able to repair DNA damage, and enhances p53-dependent transcriptional responses to DNA damage.

“Older fibroblasts produce less IGF-1 and lead to a situation where keratinocytes can grow unchecked,” she said. “We can use fractional laser to help with this. Fractional laser increases fibroblast production and decreases senescent fibroblasts.”

In a 2017 review on the impact of age and IGF-1 on DNA damage responses in UV-irradiated skin, the authors noted the high levels of IGF-1 in the skin of younger individuals and lower levels in the skin of their older counterparts.

“But once older skin has been treated with either dermabrasion or fractional laser, the levels of IGF-1 are restored to that of a young adult,” Dr. Wanner said. “The restoration of IGF-1 then restores that level of appropriate response to UV light. So, what’s interesting is that fractional lasers treat more than a fraction [of skin]. Fractional lasers were developed to have an easier way to improve wound healing by leaving the skin intact around these columns [of treated skin]. It turns out that treatment of these columns of skin does not just impact the cells in that area. There is a true global effect that’s allowing us to almost normalize skin.”

Dr. Wanner now thinks of fractional lasers as stimulating a laser-cell biology interaction, not just a laser-tissue interaction. “It’s incredible that we can use these photons to not only impact the tissue itself but how the cells actually respond,” she said. “What’s going to be interesting for us in the next few years is to look at how lasers impact our cellular biology. How can we harness it to help our patients?”

She and her colleagues are conducting a trial of different wounding modalities to assess their impact on IGF-1. “Does depth matter? Does density matter? Does the wavelength matter?” she asked. “The bottom line is, it turns out that when the skin looks healthier, it is healthier. Cosmetic treatments can impact medical outcomes.”

Dr. Wanner disclosed that she is a consultant and advisor to Nu Skin. She has also received research funding and equipment from Solta.

SAN DIEGO – Using the ablative fractional laser and other wounding therapies to destroy actinic keratoses (AKs) as a way to prevent skin cancer appears to spark other beneficial effects on skin biology, according to Molly Wanner, MD, MBA.

As a case in point, Dr. Wanner discussed the results of a trial of 48 people over aged 60 years with actinic damage, who received ablative fractional laser treatment on one arm and no treatment on the other arm, which served as the control. At 24 months, only two nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) developed on the treated arms, compared with 26 on the treated arms.

“What I find interesting is that the treated arm did not develop basal cell carcinoma, only squamous cell carcinoma,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “It appears that this is working through more than just treatment of the AK precursor lesions, for which fractional lasers are cleared for use. It appears to impact both types of NMSCs.”

The ablative fractional laser and other wounding therapies can modulate a response to UV light – a process that naturally diminishes with age, according to Dr. Wanner, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center in Boston. “This ability to repair DNA is actually modulated by insulin-like growth factor 1,” she said. “IGF-1 is produced by papillary dermal fibroblasts and communicates with keratinocytes. If keratinocytes are exposed to UV light and there is no IGF-1 around, you get a mutated cell, and that keeps spreading, and you could potentially get a skin cancer.”

On the other hand, she continued, if IGF-1 is injected around the keratinocytes, they are able to respond. “Keratinocytes, which are the most superficial layer of the skin, are really active,” noted Dr. Wanner, who is also an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They’re dividing and replicating, whereas fibroblasts are more non-proliferative and more long-lived. They stick around for a long time. I think of them as the adults in the room, giving these new keratinocytes direction.”

In a review of wounding therapies for the prevention of photocarcinogenesis, she and her coauthors noted that IGF-1 increases nucleotide excision repair of damaged DNA, promotes checkpoint signaling and suppression of DNA synthesis, favors specialized polymerases that are better able to repair DNA damage, and enhances p53-dependent transcriptional responses to DNA damage.

“Older fibroblasts produce less IGF-1 and lead to a situation where keratinocytes can grow unchecked,” she said. “We can use fractional laser to help with this. Fractional laser increases fibroblast production and decreases senescent fibroblasts.”

In a 2017 review on the impact of age and IGF-1 on DNA damage responses in UV-irradiated skin, the authors noted the high levels of IGF-1 in the skin of younger individuals and lower levels in the skin of their older counterparts.

“But once older skin has been treated with either dermabrasion or fractional laser, the levels of IGF-1 are restored to that of a young adult,” Dr. Wanner said. “The restoration of IGF-1 then restores that level of appropriate response to UV light. So, what’s interesting is that fractional lasers treat more than a fraction [of skin]. Fractional lasers were developed to have an easier way to improve wound healing by leaving the skin intact around these columns [of treated skin]. It turns out that treatment of these columns of skin does not just impact the cells in that area. There is a true global effect that’s allowing us to almost normalize skin.”

Dr. Wanner now thinks of fractional lasers as stimulating a laser-cell biology interaction, not just a laser-tissue interaction. “It’s incredible that we can use these photons to not only impact the tissue itself but how the cells actually respond,” she said. “What’s going to be interesting for us in the next few years is to look at how lasers impact our cellular biology. How can we harness it to help our patients?”

She and her colleagues are conducting a trial of different wounding modalities to assess their impact on IGF-1. “Does depth matter? Does density matter? Does the wavelength matter?” she asked. “The bottom line is, it turns out that when the skin looks healthier, it is healthier. Cosmetic treatments can impact medical outcomes.”

Dr. Wanner disclosed that she is a consultant and advisor to Nu Skin. She has also received research funding and equipment from Solta.

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).

The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.

Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues  demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.

Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.

In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).

The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.

Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues  demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.

Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.

In another recent prospective study, Cabeza and colleagues noted that ocrelizumab-treated PWMS who received a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose had a boosted T-cell response, but there was no additive effect on the maximal T-cell response. The study included PWMS taking DMT (ocrelizumab, n = 24; fingolimod, n = 12; or no DMT, n = 10) and healthy controls (n = 12), all of whom received three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses (BioNTech-Pfizer or Moderna). The SARS-CoV-2–specific T-cell response in patients treated with ocrelizumab was comparable to that in PWMS who were not treated with DMT and to that in healthy controls after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no additive effect on T-cell response, but it did induce a booster response (P < .05).

The relationship and interplay of both T-cell and B-cell responses to viral infection is important to understand and appreciate. However, for PWMS who have had, do have, or will experience breakthrough infection, early use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) was effective and safe in treating acute COVID-19 in PWMS treated with fingolimod or ocrelizumab. Manzano and colleagues reported on an observational study including 23 PWMS, most of whom had completed the initial COVID-19 vaccine series before infection and were either untreated or treated with fingolimod+ ocrelizumab and then received anti–SARS-CoV2 mAbs (bamlanivimab + etesevimab, casirivimab + imdevimab, sotrovimab, or an undocumented formulation) for treatment of active COVID-19. In this study, 74% of PWMS were able to be managed as outpatients (median duration to mAb receipt, 4 days), and 48% of PWMS recovered from COVID-19 within 7 days after mAb receipt, with no clinical MS relapses documented during or shortly after COVID-19 (median follow-up, 18 days). No adverse events or deaths were reported in this series.

Pivotal trials and package insert information affect DMT choice and dosing, the timing of ongoing treatment, and the awareness of efficacy and potential adverse reactions. Foley and colleagues  demonstrated that switching to once-every-6-weeks (QW6) dosing of natalizumab from a stable dosing of once every 4 weeks (QW4) was safe, without any clinically meaningful loss of efficacy in most patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). In the phase 3b NOVA trial (N = 499), patients with RRMS receiving stable intravenous natalizumab QW4 dosing were randomly assigned to continue QW4 (n = 248) or switch to QW6 (n = 251) natalizumab dosing. The mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at 72 weeks was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.63) with natalizumab QW6 vs 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.22) with natalizumab QW4, with only two of the PWMS developing 25 or more lesions; this contributed to most of the excess lesions in the QW6 dosing regimen. The safety profile was similar for both the regimens.

Both DMT choice and vaccine-related antibody production matter. Various DMT have different and problematic impact on antibody production and response, and unrecognized immune deficiency or poor antibody response are problematic as variant COVID-19 strains continue to evolve. Protection against both MS disease activity and infections from variants remain a complex issue. Establishing and maintaining protection are important. Identifying PWMS who are at high risk for poor or sustained antibody response is important in addition to the ongoing effective treatment of MS. The landscape of available DMT choice, treatment paradigms, and COVID-19 variants and COVID-19 family protection continues to evolve.

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

SAN DIEGO – A combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness meditation could reduce pain and fatigue from Crohn’s disease, researchers say.

Patients who followed the program not only felt better but were also more often able to show up for work and leisure activities, compared with a control group assigned to a wait list, said Shmuel Odes, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba, Israel. He presented the finding at Digestive Diseases Week^® (DDW) 2022.

Psychological and social factors affect the gut and vice versa, Dr. Odes said. Yet many inflammatory bowel disease clinics overlook psychological interventions.

To address these issues, Dr. Odes and colleagues developed cognitive-behavioral– and mindfulness-based stress reduction (COBMINDEX) training, which can be taught by clinical social workers over the Internet. “The patient learns to relax,” Dr. Odes told MDedge News. “He learns not to fight his condition.”

In a previous paper, published in the journal Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Dr. Odes and colleagues reported that patients who learned the technique showed improvement on a variety of psychological and quality-of-life measures, accompanied by changes in inflammatory cytokines and cortisol.

In a follow-up analysis presented here, the researchers looked at measures of pain and fatigue and then examined whether these were associated with productivity at work and other daily activities.

The study investigators randomly assigned 72 patients to an intervention group who got COBMINDEX training right away, and another 70 to a control group assigned to a wait list of 12 weeks before they could get the training. At baseline, the two groups were not significantly different in any demographic or clinical variable the researchers could find.

Social workers provided COBMINDEX training for the patients in seven 60-minute session over 12 weeks. Five of the sessions were devoted to cognitive-behavioral therapy and two to mindfulness-based stress reduction. The social workers asked the patients to do exercises at least once a day and report outcomes through an app.

Twelve patients dropped out of the COBMINDEX group and four dropped from the wait-list group because of lack of interest, time constraints, pregnancy, or illness.

The researchers created a composite score with a 0-15 scale (with higher scores indicating greater pain) from three pain items from the Harvey-Bradshaw Index for Crohn’s Disease, the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, and the 12-Item Short Form Survey.

To measure fatigue, they used the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, which has a 0-52 scale, with lower scores indicating greater fatigue.

To measure impairment while working and other daily activities, they used the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Crohn’s Disease. Scores on this measure are expressed as a percentage, with higher values indicating greater impairment.

Both the COBMINDEX and the wait-list groups improved on all these scales, but the improvements were significantly greater for the COBMINDEX group.

SAN DIEGO – A combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness meditation could reduce pain and fatigue from Crohn’s disease, researchers say.

Patients who followed the program not only felt better but were also more often able to show up for work and leisure activities, compared with a control group assigned to a wait list, said Shmuel Odes, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba, Israel. He presented the finding at Digestive Diseases Week^® (DDW) 2022.

Psychological and social factors affect the gut and vice versa, Dr. Odes said. Yet many inflammatory bowel disease clinics overlook psychological interventions.

To address these issues, Dr. Odes and colleagues developed cognitive-behavioral– and mindfulness-based stress reduction (COBMINDEX) training, which can be taught by clinical social workers over the Internet. “The patient learns to relax,” Dr. Odes told MDedge News. “He learns not to fight his condition.”

In a previous paper, published in the journal Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Dr. Odes and colleagues reported that patients who learned the technique showed improvement on a variety of psychological and quality-of-life measures, accompanied by changes in inflammatory cytokines and cortisol.

In a follow-up analysis presented here, the researchers looked at measures of pain and fatigue and then examined whether these were associated with productivity at work and other daily activities.

The study investigators randomly assigned 72 patients to an intervention group who got COBMINDEX training right away, and another 70 to a control group assigned to a wait list of 12 weeks before they could get the training. At baseline, the two groups were not significantly different in any demographic or clinical variable the researchers could find.

Social workers provided COBMINDEX training for the patients in seven 60-minute session over 12 weeks. Five of the sessions were devoted to cognitive-behavioral therapy and two to mindfulness-based stress reduction. The social workers asked the patients to do exercises at least once a day and report outcomes through an app.

Twelve patients dropped out of the COBMINDEX group and four dropped from the wait-list group because of lack of interest, time constraints, pregnancy, or illness.

The researchers created a composite score with a 0-15 scale (with higher scores indicating greater pain) from three pain items from the Harvey-Bradshaw Index for Crohn’s Disease, the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, and the 12-Item Short Form Survey.

To measure fatigue, they used the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, which has a 0-52 scale, with lower scores indicating greater fatigue.

To measure impairment while working and other daily activities, they used the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Crohn’s Disease. Scores on this measure are expressed as a percentage, with higher values indicating greater impairment.

Both the COBMINDEX and the wait-list groups improved on all these scales, but the improvements were significantly greater for the COBMINDEX group.

SAN DIEGO – A combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness meditation could reduce pain and fatigue from Crohn’s disease, researchers say.

Patients who followed the program not only felt better but were also more often able to show up for work and leisure activities, compared with a control group assigned to a wait list, said Shmuel Odes, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba, Israel. He presented the finding at Digestive Diseases Week^® (DDW) 2022.

Psychological and social factors affect the gut and vice versa, Dr. Odes said. Yet many inflammatory bowel disease clinics overlook psychological interventions.

To address these issues, Dr. Odes and colleagues developed cognitive-behavioral– and mindfulness-based stress reduction (COBMINDEX) training, which can be taught by clinical social workers over the Internet. “The patient learns to relax,” Dr. Odes told MDedge News. “He learns not to fight his condition.”

In a previous paper, published in the journal Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Dr. Odes and colleagues reported that patients who learned the technique showed improvement on a variety of psychological and quality-of-life measures, accompanied by changes in inflammatory cytokines and cortisol.

In a follow-up analysis presented here, the researchers looked at measures of pain and fatigue and then examined whether these were associated with productivity at work and other daily activities.

The study investigators randomly assigned 72 patients to an intervention group who got COBMINDEX training right away, and another 70 to a control group assigned to a wait list of 12 weeks before they could get the training. At baseline, the two groups were not significantly different in any demographic or clinical variable the researchers could find.

Social workers provided COBMINDEX training for the patients in seven 60-minute session over 12 weeks. Five of the sessions were devoted to cognitive-behavioral therapy and two to mindfulness-based stress reduction. The social workers asked the patients to do exercises at least once a day and report outcomes through an app.

Twelve patients dropped out of the COBMINDEX group and four dropped from the wait-list group because of lack of interest, time constraints, pregnancy, or illness.

The researchers created a composite score with a 0-15 scale (with higher scores indicating greater pain) from three pain items from the Harvey-Bradshaw Index for Crohn’s Disease, the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, and the 12-Item Short Form Survey.

To measure fatigue, they used the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, which has a 0-52 scale, with lower scores indicating greater fatigue.

To measure impairment while working and other daily activities, they used the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Crohn’s Disease. Scores on this measure are expressed as a percentage, with higher values indicating greater impairment.

Both the COBMINDEX and the wait-list groups improved on all these scales, but the improvements were significantly greater for the COBMINDEX group.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health clinics in the United States successfully upheld the standard of care for patients with schizophrenia using telepsychiatry and long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs), new survey data show.

“Mental health centers rose to the challenge and did what they needed to do for their patients,” study investigator Dawn Velligan, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, told this news organization.

“Some decided to put patients on longer-acting injectable formulations. Some centers gave injections outside to make people feel safer,” Dr. Velligan said.

She added that other patients who might not have had transportation, or were too afraid to come in, were switched to oral medications. However, “switching to orals isn’t something that should be done lightly. I would only want patients to switch to orals as a last resort, but you do what you have to do,” Dr. Velligan said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

No going back?

When COVID hit, many mental health clinics closed for in-person visits. “This was unprecedented and we wanted to understand how clinics adapted their services and clinical management of patients with schizophrenia” on LAIs, Dr. Velligan said.

She and her colleagues surveyed 35 mental health clinics, with one respondent at each clinic, between October and November 2020.

All 35 clinics reported using telepsychiatry; 15 had been using telepsychiatry before the pandemic, while 20 (57%) began using it after COVID hit.

Across outpatient visit types, telepsychiatry use for noninjection visits rose from 12%-15% before the pandemic to 45%-69% after the pandemic.

In addition, patients were more apt to keep their telehealth visit. The frequency of appointment “no shows” and/or cancellations for telepsychiatry visits decreased by roughly one-third after the pandemic, compared with before the pandemic.

For patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs, the frequency of telepsychiatry visits increased in 46% of the clinics during the pandemic.

For these patients, management options included switching patients from LAIs to oral antipsychotics in 34% of clinics and switching patients to LAIs with longer injection intervals in 31% of clinics.

Chief barriers to telepsychiatry visits were low reimbursement rate and lack of access to technology/reliable Internet.

Nearly all respondents reported being satisfied with the use of telepsychiatry to support patients with schizophrenia, whether treated with LAIs (94%) or with oral antipsychotics (97%).

Sixty percent of respondents reported no change in medication adherence for patients treated with LAIs since the start of the pandemic, while less than half (43%) reported no change in adherence to oral antipsychotics.

Most respondents (69%) felt that telepsychiatry visits would very likely continue to be used in combination with in-person office visits after the pandemic.

“Telemedicine is here to stay,” Dr. Velligan said.
 

Moving to a ‘hybrid universe’

Hector Colon-Rivera, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and president of the APA’s Hispanic Caucus, agrees.

Commenting on the findings, he noted that, because of shifts in care brought on by COVID, psychiatrists had to adopt telemedicine practices. As a result, many “now feel more comfortable” with telehealth visits for medication management and psychotherapy, said Dr. Colon-Rivera, who was not involved with the research.

He added this study is important because it shows that even patients with severe mental illness can be successfully managed with telepsychiatry, and with good adherence.

“Especially for patients with schizophrenia who have access issues, telepsychiatry is really helpful,” Dr. Colon-Rivera said.

“Telepsychiatry is becoming standard. Most clinics are moving to the hybrid universe now by having a telemedicine component and also seeing patients in person. Even places like emergency rooms and psychiatrists who do consults on medical floors are using telepsychiatry as an option,” he added.

Study funding was provided by Alkermes. Dr. Velligan has reported financial relationships with Alkermes, Otsuka, Janssen, and Lyndra. Dr. Colon-Rivera has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health clinics in the United States successfully upheld the standard of care for patients with schizophrenia using telepsychiatry and long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs), new survey data show.

“Mental health centers rose to the challenge and did what they needed to do for their patients,” study investigator Dawn Velligan, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, told this news organization.

“Some decided to put patients on longer-acting injectable formulations. Some centers gave injections outside to make people feel safer,” Dr. Velligan said.

She added that other patients who might not have had transportation, or were too afraid to come in, were switched to oral medications. However, “switching to orals isn’t something that should be done lightly. I would only want patients to switch to orals as a last resort, but you do what you have to do,” Dr. Velligan said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

No going back?

When COVID hit, many mental health clinics closed for in-person visits. “This was unprecedented and we wanted to understand how clinics adapted their services and clinical management of patients with schizophrenia” on LAIs, Dr. Velligan said.

She and her colleagues surveyed 35 mental health clinics, with one respondent at each clinic, between October and November 2020.

All 35 clinics reported using telepsychiatry; 15 had been using telepsychiatry before the pandemic, while 20 (57%) began using it after COVID hit.

Across outpatient visit types, telepsychiatry use for noninjection visits rose from 12%-15% before the pandemic to 45%-69% after the pandemic.

In addition, patients were more apt to keep their telehealth visit. The frequency of appointment “no shows” and/or cancellations for telepsychiatry visits decreased by roughly one-third after the pandemic, compared with before the pandemic.

For patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs, the frequency of telepsychiatry visits increased in 46% of the clinics during the pandemic.

For these patients, management options included switching patients from LAIs to oral antipsychotics in 34% of clinics and switching patients to LAIs with longer injection intervals in 31% of clinics.

Chief barriers to telepsychiatry visits were low reimbursement rate and lack of access to technology/reliable Internet.

Nearly all respondents reported being satisfied with the use of telepsychiatry to support patients with schizophrenia, whether treated with LAIs (94%) or with oral antipsychotics (97%).

Sixty percent of respondents reported no change in medication adherence for patients treated with LAIs since the start of the pandemic, while less than half (43%) reported no change in adherence to oral antipsychotics.

Most respondents (69%) felt that telepsychiatry visits would very likely continue to be used in combination with in-person office visits after the pandemic.

“Telemedicine is here to stay,” Dr. Velligan said.
 

Moving to a ‘hybrid universe’

Hector Colon-Rivera, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and president of the APA’s Hispanic Caucus, agrees.

Commenting on the findings, he noted that, because of shifts in care brought on by COVID, psychiatrists had to adopt telemedicine practices. As a result, many “now feel more comfortable” with telehealth visits for medication management and psychotherapy, said Dr. Colon-Rivera, who was not involved with the research.

He added this study is important because it shows that even patients with severe mental illness can be successfully managed with telepsychiatry, and with good adherence.

“Especially for patients with schizophrenia who have access issues, telepsychiatry is really helpful,” Dr. Colon-Rivera said.

“Telepsychiatry is becoming standard. Most clinics are moving to the hybrid universe now by having a telemedicine component and also seeing patients in person. Even places like emergency rooms and psychiatrists who do consults on medical floors are using telepsychiatry as an option,” he added.

Study funding was provided by Alkermes. Dr. Velligan has reported financial relationships with Alkermes, Otsuka, Janssen, and Lyndra. Dr. Colon-Rivera has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health clinics in the United States successfully upheld the standard of care for patients with schizophrenia using telepsychiatry and long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs), new survey data show.

“Mental health centers rose to the challenge and did what they needed to do for their patients,” study investigator Dawn Velligan, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, told this news organization.

“Some decided to put patients on longer-acting injectable formulations. Some centers gave injections outside to make people feel safer,” Dr. Velligan said.

She added that other patients who might not have had transportation, or were too afraid to come in, were switched to oral medications. However, “switching to orals isn’t something that should be done lightly. I would only want patients to switch to orals as a last resort, but you do what you have to do,” Dr. Velligan said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
 

No going back?

When COVID hit, many mental health clinics closed for in-person visits. “This was unprecedented and we wanted to understand how clinics adapted their services and clinical management of patients with schizophrenia” on LAIs, Dr. Velligan said.

She and her colleagues surveyed 35 mental health clinics, with one respondent at each clinic, between October and November 2020.

All 35 clinics reported using telepsychiatry; 15 had been using telepsychiatry before the pandemic, while 20 (57%) began using it after COVID hit.

Across outpatient visit types, telepsychiatry use for noninjection visits rose from 12%-15% before the pandemic to 45%-69% after the pandemic.

In addition, patients were more apt to keep their telehealth visit. The frequency of appointment “no shows” and/or cancellations for telepsychiatry visits decreased by roughly one-third after the pandemic, compared with before the pandemic.

For patients with schizophrenia treated with LAIs, the frequency of telepsychiatry visits increased in 46% of the clinics during the pandemic.

For these patients, management options included switching patients from LAIs to oral antipsychotics in 34% of clinics and switching patients to LAIs with longer injection intervals in 31% of clinics.

Chief barriers to telepsychiatry visits were low reimbursement rate and lack of access to technology/reliable Internet.

Nearly all respondents reported being satisfied with the use of telepsychiatry to support patients with schizophrenia, whether treated with LAIs (94%) or with oral antipsychotics (97%).

Sixty percent of respondents reported no change in medication adherence for patients treated with LAIs since the start of the pandemic, while less than half (43%) reported no change in adherence to oral antipsychotics.

Most respondents (69%) felt that telepsychiatry visits would very likely continue to be used in combination with in-person office visits after the pandemic.

“Telemedicine is here to stay,” Dr. Velligan said.
 

Moving to a ‘hybrid universe’

Hector Colon-Rivera, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and president of the APA’s Hispanic Caucus, agrees.

Commenting on the findings, he noted that, because of shifts in care brought on by COVID, psychiatrists had to adopt telemedicine practices. As a result, many “now feel more comfortable” with telehealth visits for medication management and psychotherapy, said Dr. Colon-Rivera, who was not involved with the research.

He added this study is important because it shows that even patients with severe mental illness can be successfully managed with telepsychiatry, and with good adherence.

“Especially for patients with schizophrenia who have access issues, telepsychiatry is really helpful,” Dr. Colon-Rivera said.

“Telepsychiatry is becoming standard. Most clinics are moving to the hybrid universe now by having a telemedicine component and also seeing patients in person. Even places like emergency rooms and psychiatrists who do consults on medical floors are using telepsychiatry as an option,” he added.

Study funding was provided by Alkermes. Dr. Velligan has reported financial relationships with Alkermes, Otsuka, Janssen, and Lyndra. Dr. Colon-Rivera has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

There is a feeling of exhaustion, being unable to shake a lingering cold, suffering from frequent headaches and gastrointestinal disturbances, sleeplessness and shortness of breath ...

That was how burnout was described by clinical psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, who first used the phrase in a paper back in 1974, after observing the emotional depletion and accompanying psychosomatic symptoms among volunteer staff of a free clinic in New York City. He called it “burnout,” a term borrowed from the slang of substance abusers.

It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that burnout is a serious issue facing physicians across specialties, albeit some more intensely than others. But with the constant barrage of stories published on an almost daily basis, along with studies and surveys, it begs the question: Are physicians getting tired of hearing about burnout? In other words, are they getting “burned out” about burnout?

Some have suggested that the focus should be more on tackling burnout and instituting viable solutions rather than rehashing the problem.

There haven’t been studies or surveys on this question, but several experts have offered their opinion.

Jonathan Fisher, MD, a cardiologist and organizational well-being and resiliency leader at Novant Health, Charlotte, N.C., cautioned that he hesitates to speak about what physicians in general believe. “We are a diverse group of nearly 1 million in the United States alone,” he said.

But he noted that there is a specific phenomenon among burned-out health care providers who are “burned out on burnout.”

“Essentially, the underlying thought is ‘talk is cheap and we want action,’” said Dr. Fisher, who is chair and co-founder of the Ending Physician Burnout Global Summit that was held in 2021. “This reaction is often a reflection of disheartened physicians’ sense of hopelessness and cynicism that systemic change to improve working conditions will happen in our lifetime.”

Dr. Fisher explained that “typically, anyone suffering – physicians or nonphysicians – cares more about ending the suffering as soon as possible than learning its causes, but to alleviate suffering at its core – including the emotional suffering of burnout – we must understand the many causes.”

“To address both the organizational and individual drivers of burnout requires a keen awareness of the thoughts, fears, and dreams of physicians, health care executives, and all other stakeholders in health care,” he added.

Burnout, of course, is a very real problem. The 2022 Medscape Physician Burnout & Depression Report found that nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they are burned out, which was higher than the prior year. Perhaps not surprisingly, burnout among emergency physicians took the biggest leap, jumping from 43% in 2021 to 60% this year. More than half of critical care physicians (56%) also reported that they were burned out.

The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) – the official compendium of diseases – has categorized burnout as a “syndrome” that results from “chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” It is considered to be an occupational phenomenon and is not classified as a medical condition.

But whether or not physicians are burned out on hearing about burnout remains unclear. “I am not sure if physicians are tired of hearing about ‘burnout,’ but I do think that they want to hear about solutions that go beyond just telling them to take better care of themselves,” said Anne Thorndike, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “There are major systematic factors that contribute to physicians burning out.”
 

Why talk about negative outcomes?

Jonathan Ripp, MD, MPH, however, is familiar with this sentiment. “‘Why do we keep identifying a problem without solutions’ is certainly a sentiment that is being expressed,” he said. “It’s a negative outcome, so why do we keep talking about negative outcomes?”

Dr. Ripp, who is a professor of medicine, medical education, and geriatrics and palliative medicine; the senior associate dean for well-being and resilience; and chief wellness officer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is also a well-known expert and researcher in burnout and physician well-being.

He noted that burnout was one of the first “tools” used as a metric to measure well-being, but it is a negative measurement. “It’s been around a long time, so it has a lot of evidence,” said Dr. Ripp. “But that said, there are other ways of measuring well-being without a negative association, and ways of measuring meaning in work – fulfillment and satisfaction, and so on. It should be balanced.”

But for the average physician not familiar with the long legacy of research, they may be frustrated by this situation. “Then they ask, ‘Why are you just showing me more of this instead of doing something about it?’ but we are actually doing something about it,” said Dr. Ripp.

There are many efforts underway, he explained, but it’s a challenging and complex issue. “There are numerous drivers impacting the well-being of any given segment within the health care workforce,” he said. “It will also vary by discipline and location, and there are also a host of individual factors that may have very little to do with the work environment. There are some very well-established efforts for an organizational approach, but it remains to be seen which is the most effective.”

But in broad strokes, he continued, it’s about tackling the system and not about making an individual more resilient. “Individuals that do engage in activities that improve resilience do better, but that’s not what this is about – it’s not going to solve the problem,” said Dr. Ripp. “Those of us like myself, who are working in this space, are trying to promote a culture of well-being – at the system level.”

The question is how to enable the workforce to do their best work in an efficient way so that the balance of their activities are not the meaningless aspects. “And instead, shoot that balance to the meaningful aspects of work,” he added. “There are enormous challenges, but even though we are working on solutions, I can see how the individual may not see that – they may say, ‘Stop telling me to be resilient, stop telling me there’s a problem,’ but we’re working on it.”
 

Moving medicine forward

James Jerzak, MD, a family physician in Green Bay, Wisc., and physician lead at Bellin Health, noted that “it seems to me that doctors aren’t burned out talking about burnout, but they are burned out hearing that the solution to burnout is simply for them to become more resilient,” he said. “In actuality, the path to dealing with this huge problem is to make meaningful systemic changes in how medicine is practiced.”

He reiterated that medical care has become increasingly complex, with the aging of the population; the increasing incidence of chronic diseases, such as diabetes; the challenges with the increasing cost of care, higher copays, and lack of health insurance for a large portion of the country; and general incivility toward health care workers that was exacerbated by the pandemic.

“This has all led to significantly increased stress levels for medical workers,” he said. “Couple all of that with the increased work involved in meeting the demands of the electronic health record, and it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable.”

In his own health care system, moving medicine forward has meant advancing team-based care, which translates to expanding teams to include adequate support for physicians. This strategy addressed problems in health care delivery, part of which is burnout.

“In many systems practicing advanced team-based care, the ancillary staff – medical assistants, LPNs, and RNs – play an enhanced role in the patient visit and perform functions such as quality care gap closure, medication review and refill pending, pending orders, and helping with documentation,” he said. “Although the current health care workforce shortages has created challenges, there are a lot of innovative approaches being tried [that are] aimed at providing solutions.”

The second key factor is for systems is to develop robust support for their providers with a broad range of team members, such as case managers, clinical pharmacists, diabetic educators, care coordinators, and others. “The day has passed where individual physicians can effectivity manage all of the complexities of care, especially since there are so many nonclinical factors affecting care,” said Dr. Jerzak.

“The recent focus on the social determinants of health and health equity underlies the fact that it truly takes a team of health care professionals working together to provide optimal care for patients,” he said.

Dr. Thorndike, who mentors premedical and medical trainees, has pointed out that burnout begins way before an individual enters the workplace as a doctor. Burnout begins in the earliest stages of medical practice, with the application process to medical school. The admissions process extends over a 12-month period, causing a great deal of “toxic stress.”

One study found that, compared with non-premedical students, premedical students had greater depression severity and emotional exhaustion.

“The current system of medical school admissions ignores the toll that the lengthy and emotionally exhausting process takes on aspiring physicians,” she said. “This is just one example of many in training and health care that requires physicians to set aside their own lives to achieve their goals and to provide the best possible care to others.”

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

A new study suggests that very high levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may be associated with higher mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.

A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.

“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Inverse association?

HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.

Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.

To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.

Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.

Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.

Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).

“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”

Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).

Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Red flag

Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”

In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”

They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

A new study suggests that very high levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may be associated with higher mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.

A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.

“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Inverse association?

HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.

Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.

To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.

Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.

Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.

Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).

“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”

Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).

Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Red flag

Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”

In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”

They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

A new study suggests that very high levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may be associated with higher mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Investigators studied close to 10,000 patients with CAD in two separate cohorts. After adjusting for an array of covariates, they found that individuals with HDL-C levels greater than 80 mg/dL had a 96% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 71% higher risk for cardiovascular mortality than those with HDL-C levels between 40 and 60 mg/dL.

A U-shaped association was found, with higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with both very low and very high, compared with midrange, HDL-C values.

“Very high HDL levels are associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes, not lower risk, as previously thought. This is true not only in the general population, but also in people with known coronary artery disease,” senior author Arshed A. Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine, division of cardiology, Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Physicians have to be cognizant of the fact that, at levels of HDL-C above 80 mg/dL, they [should be] more aggressive with risk reduction and not believe that the patient is at ‘low risk’ because of high levels of ‘good’ cholesterol,” said Dr. Quyyumi, director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Inverse association?

HDL-C levels have “historically been inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; however, recent studies have questioned the efficacy of therapies designed to increase HDL-C levels,” the authors wrote. Moreover, genetic variants associated with HDL-C have not been found to be linked to CVD risk.

Whether “very high HDL-C levels in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are associated with mortality risk remains unknown,” they wrote. In this study, the researchers investigated not only the potential risk of elevated HDL-C levels in these patients, but also the association of known HDL-C genetic variants with this risk.

To do so, they analyzed data from a subset of patients with CAD in two independent study groups: the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 14,478; mean [standard deviation] age, 61.2 [5.8] years; 76.2% male; 93.8% White) and the Emory Cardiovascular Biobank (EmCAB; n = 5,467; mean age, 63.8 [12.3] years; 66.4% male; 73.2% White). Participants were followed prospectively for a median of 8.9 (interquartile range, 8.0-9.7) years and 6.7 (IQR, 4.0-10.8) years, respectively.

Additional data collected included medical and medication history and demographic characteristics, which were used as covariates, as well as genomic information.

Of the UKB cohort, 12.4% and 7.9% sustained all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively, during the follow-up period, and 1.8% of participants had an HDL-C level above 80 mg/dL.

Among these participants with very high HDL-C levels, 16.9% and 8.6% had all-cause or cardiovascular death, respectively. Compared with the reference category (HDL-C level of 40-60 mg/dL), those with low HDL-C levels (≤ 30 mg/dL) had an expected higher risk for both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, even after adjustment for covariates (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.64 and HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.85, respectively; P = .009).

“Importantly,” the authors stated, “compared with the reference category, individuals with very high HDL-C levels (>80 mg/dL) also had a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.58 [1.16-2.14], P = .004).”

Although cardiovascular death rates were not significantly greater in unadjusted analyses, after adjustment, the highest HDL-C group had an increased risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.42-2.71; P < .001 and HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68, respectively; P = .02).

Compared with females, males with HDL-C levels above 80 mg/dL had a higher risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Red flag

Commenting for this news organization, Sadiya Sana Khan, MD, MSc, assistant professor of medicine (cardiology) and preventive medicine (epidemiology), Northwestern University, Chicago, said: “I think the most important point [of the study] is to identify people with very high HDL-C. This can serve as a reminder to discuss heart-healthy lifestyles and discussion of statin therapy if needed, based on LDL-C.”

In an accompanying editorial coauthored with Gregg Fonarow, MD, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California, Los Angeles, the pair wrote: “Although the present findings may be related to residual confounding, high HDL-C levels should not automatically be assumed to be protective.”

They advised clinicians to “use HDL-C levels as a surrogate marker, with very low and very high levels as a red flag to target for more intensive primary and secondary prevention, as the maxim for HDL-C as ‘good’ cholesterol only holds for HDL-C levels of 80 mg/dL or less.”

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Abraham J. & Phyllis Katz Foundation. Dr. Quyyumi and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Khan reports receiving grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonarow reports receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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