User login
Does suicide risk show up in the blood?
Investigators found patients with MDD who died by suicide had a gene expression signature in blood distinct from patients with MDD who died by other means.
The signature included genes involved in stress response changes, including polyamine metabolism, circadian rhythm, immune dysregulation, and telomere maintenance.
“These blood biomarkers are an important step toward developing blood tests to identify patients with imminent risk of ending their lives,” study investigator Adolfo Sequeira, PhD, associate researcher in the department of psychiatry and human behavior, University of California, Irvine, said in a news release.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze blood and brain samples in a well-defined population of MDDs demonstrating significant differences in gene expression associated with completed suicide,” Dr. Sequeira added.
The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
A pressing challenge
Suicide rates in the United States have jumped by more than 35% over the past 2 decades, with more than 48,000 deaths by suicide occurring just last year. MDD is the most common diagnosis among completed suicides, and identifying individuals at the highest risk for suicide remains a “pressing challenge,” the researchers noted.
They looked for changes in gene expression associated with suicide in archived postmortem blood and brain samples from adults with MDD who died by suicide (MDD-S) or by other means (MDD-NS), as well as a group of controls with no psychiatric illness.
In total, there were blood and brain samples for 45 adults, including 53 blood samples and 69 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tissue samples.
In blood, investigators identified 14 genes that significantly differentiated MDD-S from MDD-NS. The top six genes differentially expressed in blood were PER3, MTPAP, SLC25A26, CD19, SOX9, and GAR1.
In addition, four genes showed significant changes in brain and blood between the MDD-S and MDD-NS groups. SOX9 was decreased and PER3 was increased in MDD-S in both blood and brain samples, while CD19 and TERF1 were increased in blood but decreased in DLPFC.
SOX9, an astrocytic marker in the brain and B-cell marker in blood, has been shown to be decreased in MDD-S compared with controls in the prefrontal cortex.
In the current study, researchers found that SOX9 expression was significantly reduced both in blood and brain in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS, “suggesting similar immune/astrocytic dysregulations in suicide that could be further investigated.”
Potential signatures, potential targets
PER3 is a circadian rhythm gene implicated in sleep disorders associated with shifts in circadian rhythms and is thought to increase susceptibility to MDD.
Mutations in PER3 have been shown previously to alter multiple systems, including response to antidepressants; and increased blood expression of PER1 has been linked to suicidality in women, the researchers noted.
There also were significantly higher levels of two inflammatory markers (CD19 and CD6 genes) in blood of MDD-S patients compared to MDD-NS patients.
Another “significant” finding was the involvement of several mitochondrial genes in suicide, the researchers said.
Two nuclear genes coding for mitochondria-located proteins MTPAP (a mitochondrial poly(A) polymerase) and the mitochondrial polyamine transporter SLC25A26 were increased in blood in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS and controls, suggesting that “mitochondrial alterations could be used as potential signatures to differentiate MDD-S from MDD-NS patients and also from controls.”
The researchers added that the genes found to be dysregulated in suicide represent potential targets for future drug therapies to prevent suicide and could also be used to develop a molecular test to identify individuals at high risk for suicide.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and the Pritzker Family Philanthropic Fund. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found patients with MDD who died by suicide had a gene expression signature in blood distinct from patients with MDD who died by other means.
The signature included genes involved in stress response changes, including polyamine metabolism, circadian rhythm, immune dysregulation, and telomere maintenance.
“These blood biomarkers are an important step toward developing blood tests to identify patients with imminent risk of ending their lives,” study investigator Adolfo Sequeira, PhD, associate researcher in the department of psychiatry and human behavior, University of California, Irvine, said in a news release.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze blood and brain samples in a well-defined population of MDDs demonstrating significant differences in gene expression associated with completed suicide,” Dr. Sequeira added.
The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
A pressing challenge
Suicide rates in the United States have jumped by more than 35% over the past 2 decades, with more than 48,000 deaths by suicide occurring just last year. MDD is the most common diagnosis among completed suicides, and identifying individuals at the highest risk for suicide remains a “pressing challenge,” the researchers noted.
They looked for changes in gene expression associated with suicide in archived postmortem blood and brain samples from adults with MDD who died by suicide (MDD-S) or by other means (MDD-NS), as well as a group of controls with no psychiatric illness.
In total, there were blood and brain samples for 45 adults, including 53 blood samples and 69 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tissue samples.
In blood, investigators identified 14 genes that significantly differentiated MDD-S from MDD-NS. The top six genes differentially expressed in blood were PER3, MTPAP, SLC25A26, CD19, SOX9, and GAR1.
In addition, four genes showed significant changes in brain and blood between the MDD-S and MDD-NS groups. SOX9 was decreased and PER3 was increased in MDD-S in both blood and brain samples, while CD19 and TERF1 were increased in blood but decreased in DLPFC.
SOX9, an astrocytic marker in the brain and B-cell marker in blood, has been shown to be decreased in MDD-S compared with controls in the prefrontal cortex.
In the current study, researchers found that SOX9 expression was significantly reduced both in blood and brain in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS, “suggesting similar immune/astrocytic dysregulations in suicide that could be further investigated.”
Potential signatures, potential targets
PER3 is a circadian rhythm gene implicated in sleep disorders associated with shifts in circadian rhythms and is thought to increase susceptibility to MDD.
Mutations in PER3 have been shown previously to alter multiple systems, including response to antidepressants; and increased blood expression of PER1 has been linked to suicidality in women, the researchers noted.
There also were significantly higher levels of two inflammatory markers (CD19 and CD6 genes) in blood of MDD-S patients compared to MDD-NS patients.
Another “significant” finding was the involvement of several mitochondrial genes in suicide, the researchers said.
Two nuclear genes coding for mitochondria-located proteins MTPAP (a mitochondrial poly(A) polymerase) and the mitochondrial polyamine transporter SLC25A26 were increased in blood in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS and controls, suggesting that “mitochondrial alterations could be used as potential signatures to differentiate MDD-S from MDD-NS patients and also from controls.”
The researchers added that the genes found to be dysregulated in suicide represent potential targets for future drug therapies to prevent suicide and could also be used to develop a molecular test to identify individuals at high risk for suicide.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and the Pritzker Family Philanthropic Fund. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found patients with MDD who died by suicide had a gene expression signature in blood distinct from patients with MDD who died by other means.
The signature included genes involved in stress response changes, including polyamine metabolism, circadian rhythm, immune dysregulation, and telomere maintenance.
“These blood biomarkers are an important step toward developing blood tests to identify patients with imminent risk of ending their lives,” study investigator Adolfo Sequeira, PhD, associate researcher in the department of psychiatry and human behavior, University of California, Irvine, said in a news release.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze blood and brain samples in a well-defined population of MDDs demonstrating significant differences in gene expression associated with completed suicide,” Dr. Sequeira added.
The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
A pressing challenge
Suicide rates in the United States have jumped by more than 35% over the past 2 decades, with more than 48,000 deaths by suicide occurring just last year. MDD is the most common diagnosis among completed suicides, and identifying individuals at the highest risk for suicide remains a “pressing challenge,” the researchers noted.
They looked for changes in gene expression associated with suicide in archived postmortem blood and brain samples from adults with MDD who died by suicide (MDD-S) or by other means (MDD-NS), as well as a group of controls with no psychiatric illness.
In total, there were blood and brain samples for 45 adults, including 53 blood samples and 69 dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tissue samples.
In blood, investigators identified 14 genes that significantly differentiated MDD-S from MDD-NS. The top six genes differentially expressed in blood were PER3, MTPAP, SLC25A26, CD19, SOX9, and GAR1.
In addition, four genes showed significant changes in brain and blood between the MDD-S and MDD-NS groups. SOX9 was decreased and PER3 was increased in MDD-S in both blood and brain samples, while CD19 and TERF1 were increased in blood but decreased in DLPFC.
SOX9, an astrocytic marker in the brain and B-cell marker in blood, has been shown to be decreased in MDD-S compared with controls in the prefrontal cortex.
In the current study, researchers found that SOX9 expression was significantly reduced both in blood and brain in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS, “suggesting similar immune/astrocytic dysregulations in suicide that could be further investigated.”
Potential signatures, potential targets
PER3 is a circadian rhythm gene implicated in sleep disorders associated with shifts in circadian rhythms and is thought to increase susceptibility to MDD.
Mutations in PER3 have been shown previously to alter multiple systems, including response to antidepressants; and increased blood expression of PER1 has been linked to suicidality in women, the researchers noted.
There also were significantly higher levels of two inflammatory markers (CD19 and CD6 genes) in blood of MDD-S patients compared to MDD-NS patients.
Another “significant” finding was the involvement of several mitochondrial genes in suicide, the researchers said.
Two nuclear genes coding for mitochondria-located proteins MTPAP (a mitochondrial poly(A) polymerase) and the mitochondrial polyamine transporter SLC25A26 were increased in blood in MDD-S compared with MDD-NS and controls, suggesting that “mitochondrial alterations could be used as potential signatures to differentiate MDD-S from MDD-NS patients and also from controls.”
The researchers added that the genes found to be dysregulated in suicide represent potential targets for future drug therapies to prevent suicide and could also be used to develop a molecular test to identify individuals at high risk for suicide.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Society for Suicide Prevention, and the Pritzker Family Philanthropic Fund. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY
New guideline gives active surveillance a boost
Experts hailed the new guidelines, released May 10 by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as a boon for patients with low-risk to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers.
“The guideline is unequivocal that AS is the preferred management option for the majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer,” panel chair James A. Eastham, MD, Peter T. Scardino Chair in Oncology and chief of urology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.
The new guideline is the first guideline for localized prostate cancer since 2017.
In the new document, guideline writers merged low-risk patients and very-low-risk patients into a single category of “low-risk.” Dr. Eastham said a distinction between very-low-risk and low-risk is inconsequential since the treatment for the two groups of patients is identical.
The 2022 guideline for the first time makes AS the recommended treatment for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer, he said. The document also provides guidance on how such patients should be selected for AS.
Most research suggests that as many as 40% of patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer have low-risk disease. Favorable intermediate-risk cancer represents 10%-15% of newly diagnosed patients, said Todd Morgan, MD, the Jack Lapides, MD, Research Professor and chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Dr. Morgan, who was not on the AUA/ASTRO panel, called the new recommendations “a very strong update compared to the guideline from 5 years ago.”
The guideline has been pared back some from 2017 to include fewer statements, but it covers several key clinical trials that have appeared over the past 6 years to strengthen the evidence base for the document, he said.
“I would say that we still have to acknowledge that many statements are based on ‘expert opinion’ rather than high-level evidence, which highlights the continued need for well-conducted studies that prove or disprove some of these statements,” Dr. Morgan added.
Patients weighed in
This year, AUA’s advocacy group urged patients to comment on the proposed guideline.
Rick Davis, founder of the AnCan Foundation, a virtual support network for prostate cancer and other diseases, thanked the groups for acknowledging the value of peer support and virtual support groups.
“AnCan congratulates the AUA/ASTRO on endorsing the proper role for the Active Surveillance protocol to manage early low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and also their qualified and well-supported warnings against focal therapy,” Mr. Davis, who reviewed the guideline, said in an email. “We are, however, disappointed at the lack of a recommendation to provide comprehensive counseling when hormone therapy is prescribed.”
James Schraidt, another patient reviewer for AnCan, said that on balance, the 2022 guideline was an improvement over 2017 and will benefit patients.
He praised AUA/ASTRO for, at the urging of patient reviewers, introducing the “cribriform” and “intraductal” pathology patterns into the guideline for the first time as risk factors.
But he criticized the doctor groups for “a less than fulsome and orderly discussion of the use of MRI. It is not mentioned as a tool that should be used prior to initial biopsy, leaving the door wide open to random biopsies. The recommended role of MRI in AS monitoring was unclear.” He also said the panel should have reviewed micro-ultrasound, an emerging technology, that can be used by itself or to complement MRIs.
Many of the AUA/ASTRO guideline changes involve semantic issues – but which experts said nevertheless were important nuances.
Dr. Eastham said the AUA/ASTRO panel debated and finally settled on the word “preferred” for AS rather than “recommended” or “strongly recommended.”
“This is a very strong statement from the AUA/ASTRO,” Dr. Morgan said. “The semantics are definitely important, but ... ’preferred’ is actually a strong word. For the AUA, what’s really important is the ‘strong recommendation’ and Grade A level of evidence.”
Dr. Morgan also observed that the AS recommendations for patients with low-risk prostate cancer are stronger in the new AUA guideline than those in the latest recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which he helped write.
The AUA/ASTRO guideline states that AS is preferred for patients with low-risk cancer, whereas in the NCCN guideline the language is: “preferred for most patients with low-risk disease cancer,” Dr. Morgan said.
“All of these statements ultimately acknowledge what I think that the vast majority of experts agree on – a small proportion of patients with low-risk prostate cancer may appropriately be recommended to undergo primary therapy,” he said.
Dr. Eastham said the goal of the guideline is to persuade surgeons to emphasize that AS is the best choice for most patients with low-risk prostate cancer: “The hope is that surgeons read the guideline. The guideline is definitive in recommending AS in low-risk prostate cancer.”
Dr. Eastham said the new guideline also does the following:
- Further endorses shared decisionmaking, with the understanding that for a decision to be made, both patient and physician need appropriate information regarding the risk posed by the cancer and the risk posed by treatment;
- Endorses selective use of somatic genetic testing when the data are needed for shared decisionmaking;
- Updates a section on genetic testing in patients considered to be at high risk for a germline mutation;
- Updates pretreatment evaluation for patients opting for treatment, primarily the role of imaging and how the evolution of next-generation imaging – such as , a new type of nuclear medicine procedure, in clinically localized prostate cancer;
- Addresses aspects of both radiotherapy and surgery, including nerve sparing, pelvic lymph node dissection, and adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy or hormone therapy delivered before or after the primary treatment. Dr. Eastham said the “significant evolution” in how best to provide radiotherapy resulted in several changes to this section.
No relevant financial relationships have been reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Experts hailed the new guidelines, released May 10 by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as a boon for patients with low-risk to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers.
“The guideline is unequivocal that AS is the preferred management option for the majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer,” panel chair James A. Eastham, MD, Peter T. Scardino Chair in Oncology and chief of urology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.
The new guideline is the first guideline for localized prostate cancer since 2017.
In the new document, guideline writers merged low-risk patients and very-low-risk patients into a single category of “low-risk.” Dr. Eastham said a distinction between very-low-risk and low-risk is inconsequential since the treatment for the two groups of patients is identical.
The 2022 guideline for the first time makes AS the recommended treatment for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer, he said. The document also provides guidance on how such patients should be selected for AS.
Most research suggests that as many as 40% of patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer have low-risk disease. Favorable intermediate-risk cancer represents 10%-15% of newly diagnosed patients, said Todd Morgan, MD, the Jack Lapides, MD, Research Professor and chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Dr. Morgan, who was not on the AUA/ASTRO panel, called the new recommendations “a very strong update compared to the guideline from 5 years ago.”
The guideline has been pared back some from 2017 to include fewer statements, but it covers several key clinical trials that have appeared over the past 6 years to strengthen the evidence base for the document, he said.
“I would say that we still have to acknowledge that many statements are based on ‘expert opinion’ rather than high-level evidence, which highlights the continued need for well-conducted studies that prove or disprove some of these statements,” Dr. Morgan added.
Patients weighed in
This year, AUA’s advocacy group urged patients to comment on the proposed guideline.
Rick Davis, founder of the AnCan Foundation, a virtual support network for prostate cancer and other diseases, thanked the groups for acknowledging the value of peer support and virtual support groups.
“AnCan congratulates the AUA/ASTRO on endorsing the proper role for the Active Surveillance protocol to manage early low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and also their qualified and well-supported warnings against focal therapy,” Mr. Davis, who reviewed the guideline, said in an email. “We are, however, disappointed at the lack of a recommendation to provide comprehensive counseling when hormone therapy is prescribed.”
James Schraidt, another patient reviewer for AnCan, said that on balance, the 2022 guideline was an improvement over 2017 and will benefit patients.
He praised AUA/ASTRO for, at the urging of patient reviewers, introducing the “cribriform” and “intraductal” pathology patterns into the guideline for the first time as risk factors.
But he criticized the doctor groups for “a less than fulsome and orderly discussion of the use of MRI. It is not mentioned as a tool that should be used prior to initial biopsy, leaving the door wide open to random biopsies. The recommended role of MRI in AS monitoring was unclear.” He also said the panel should have reviewed micro-ultrasound, an emerging technology, that can be used by itself or to complement MRIs.
Many of the AUA/ASTRO guideline changes involve semantic issues – but which experts said nevertheless were important nuances.
Dr. Eastham said the AUA/ASTRO panel debated and finally settled on the word “preferred” for AS rather than “recommended” or “strongly recommended.”
“This is a very strong statement from the AUA/ASTRO,” Dr. Morgan said. “The semantics are definitely important, but ... ’preferred’ is actually a strong word. For the AUA, what’s really important is the ‘strong recommendation’ and Grade A level of evidence.”
Dr. Morgan also observed that the AS recommendations for patients with low-risk prostate cancer are stronger in the new AUA guideline than those in the latest recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which he helped write.
The AUA/ASTRO guideline states that AS is preferred for patients with low-risk cancer, whereas in the NCCN guideline the language is: “preferred for most patients with low-risk disease cancer,” Dr. Morgan said.
“All of these statements ultimately acknowledge what I think that the vast majority of experts agree on – a small proportion of patients with low-risk prostate cancer may appropriately be recommended to undergo primary therapy,” he said.
Dr. Eastham said the goal of the guideline is to persuade surgeons to emphasize that AS is the best choice for most patients with low-risk prostate cancer: “The hope is that surgeons read the guideline. The guideline is definitive in recommending AS in low-risk prostate cancer.”
Dr. Eastham said the new guideline also does the following:
- Further endorses shared decisionmaking, with the understanding that for a decision to be made, both patient and physician need appropriate information regarding the risk posed by the cancer and the risk posed by treatment;
- Endorses selective use of somatic genetic testing when the data are needed for shared decisionmaking;
- Updates a section on genetic testing in patients considered to be at high risk for a germline mutation;
- Updates pretreatment evaluation for patients opting for treatment, primarily the role of imaging and how the evolution of next-generation imaging – such as , a new type of nuclear medicine procedure, in clinically localized prostate cancer;
- Addresses aspects of both radiotherapy and surgery, including nerve sparing, pelvic lymph node dissection, and adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy or hormone therapy delivered before or after the primary treatment. Dr. Eastham said the “significant evolution” in how best to provide radiotherapy resulted in several changes to this section.
No relevant financial relationships have been reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Experts hailed the new guidelines, released May 10 by the American Urological Association (AUA) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as a boon for patients with low-risk to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancers.
“The guideline is unequivocal that AS is the preferred management option for the majority of men with low-risk prostate cancer,” panel chair James A. Eastham, MD, Peter T. Scardino Chair in Oncology and chief of urology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview.
The new guideline is the first guideline for localized prostate cancer since 2017.
In the new document, guideline writers merged low-risk patients and very-low-risk patients into a single category of “low-risk.” Dr. Eastham said a distinction between very-low-risk and low-risk is inconsequential since the treatment for the two groups of patients is identical.
The 2022 guideline for the first time makes AS the recommended treatment for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer, he said. The document also provides guidance on how such patients should be selected for AS.
Most research suggests that as many as 40% of patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer have low-risk disease. Favorable intermediate-risk cancer represents 10%-15% of newly diagnosed patients, said Todd Morgan, MD, the Jack Lapides, MD, Research Professor and chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.
Dr. Morgan, who was not on the AUA/ASTRO panel, called the new recommendations “a very strong update compared to the guideline from 5 years ago.”
The guideline has been pared back some from 2017 to include fewer statements, but it covers several key clinical trials that have appeared over the past 6 years to strengthen the evidence base for the document, he said.
“I would say that we still have to acknowledge that many statements are based on ‘expert opinion’ rather than high-level evidence, which highlights the continued need for well-conducted studies that prove or disprove some of these statements,” Dr. Morgan added.
Patients weighed in
This year, AUA’s advocacy group urged patients to comment on the proposed guideline.
Rick Davis, founder of the AnCan Foundation, a virtual support network for prostate cancer and other diseases, thanked the groups for acknowledging the value of peer support and virtual support groups.
“AnCan congratulates the AUA/ASTRO on endorsing the proper role for the Active Surveillance protocol to manage early low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer and also their qualified and well-supported warnings against focal therapy,” Mr. Davis, who reviewed the guideline, said in an email. “We are, however, disappointed at the lack of a recommendation to provide comprehensive counseling when hormone therapy is prescribed.”
James Schraidt, another patient reviewer for AnCan, said that on balance, the 2022 guideline was an improvement over 2017 and will benefit patients.
He praised AUA/ASTRO for, at the urging of patient reviewers, introducing the “cribriform” and “intraductal” pathology patterns into the guideline for the first time as risk factors.
But he criticized the doctor groups for “a less than fulsome and orderly discussion of the use of MRI. It is not mentioned as a tool that should be used prior to initial biopsy, leaving the door wide open to random biopsies. The recommended role of MRI in AS monitoring was unclear.” He also said the panel should have reviewed micro-ultrasound, an emerging technology, that can be used by itself or to complement MRIs.
Many of the AUA/ASTRO guideline changes involve semantic issues – but which experts said nevertheless were important nuances.
Dr. Eastham said the AUA/ASTRO panel debated and finally settled on the word “preferred” for AS rather than “recommended” or “strongly recommended.”
“This is a very strong statement from the AUA/ASTRO,” Dr. Morgan said. “The semantics are definitely important, but ... ’preferred’ is actually a strong word. For the AUA, what’s really important is the ‘strong recommendation’ and Grade A level of evidence.”
Dr. Morgan also observed that the AS recommendations for patients with low-risk prostate cancer are stronger in the new AUA guideline than those in the latest recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which he helped write.
The AUA/ASTRO guideline states that AS is preferred for patients with low-risk cancer, whereas in the NCCN guideline the language is: “preferred for most patients with low-risk disease cancer,” Dr. Morgan said.
“All of these statements ultimately acknowledge what I think that the vast majority of experts agree on – a small proportion of patients with low-risk prostate cancer may appropriately be recommended to undergo primary therapy,” he said.
Dr. Eastham said the goal of the guideline is to persuade surgeons to emphasize that AS is the best choice for most patients with low-risk prostate cancer: “The hope is that surgeons read the guideline. The guideline is definitive in recommending AS in low-risk prostate cancer.”
Dr. Eastham said the new guideline also does the following:
- Further endorses shared decisionmaking, with the understanding that for a decision to be made, both patient and physician need appropriate information regarding the risk posed by the cancer and the risk posed by treatment;
- Endorses selective use of somatic genetic testing when the data are needed for shared decisionmaking;
- Updates a section on genetic testing in patients considered to be at high risk for a germline mutation;
- Updates pretreatment evaluation for patients opting for treatment, primarily the role of imaging and how the evolution of next-generation imaging – such as , a new type of nuclear medicine procedure, in clinically localized prostate cancer;
- Addresses aspects of both radiotherapy and surgery, including nerve sparing, pelvic lymph node dissection, and adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, such as chemotherapy or hormone therapy delivered before or after the primary treatment. Dr. Eastham said the “significant evolution” in how best to provide radiotherapy resulted in several changes to this section.
No relevant financial relationships have been reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Finding ‘bright lights’: Why family physician continues to love practicing mid-career
A few years ago I tracked down my medical school interviewer to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do what I felt I was called to do. I was surprised that, after 15 years, he actually remembered me and remembered details like walking to the courtyard to meet my father who’d driven me to the interview.
Sharing my gratitude and letting him know I was happy felt important to me.
Choosing to practice family medicine has a lot to do with why I am happy in my career today.
One of my frustrations with health care had been its emphasis on treatment of sickness, rather than a broader one that incorporated prevention of sickness. During my third year of medical school, I was following a family and sports medicine faculty member who was focusing on aspects of lifestyle medicine to help a patient remain active and age gracefully. Seeing opportunities to practice preventative medicine in family medicine made me realize the specialty was the perfect fit for me.
Food as medicine
While participating in rotations I also realized you can find a subspecialty within family medicine.
During my fourth year of medical school, I followed an attending who was seeing a patient for hypertension, prediabetes and hypercholesterolemia. The attending told the patient to eat “healthier,” gave her a handout, and scheduled a follow up appointment for 6 months later.
My thoughts were: “That’s it? That’s how we counsel patients to improve their dietary habits?”
As the patient was leaving the exam room, I asked her what type of oil she cooked with, and I proceeded to share culinary tips from my mother – who was a self-taught and early adopter of the food-as-medicine movement.
Once I started my residency, I knew I’d want to incorporate lifestyle and dietary approaches at many of my patient visits.
I scheduled patients every month to monitor their weight, follow up on chronic conditions, but more importantly, to engage them in their health and empower them to make small lifestyle changes each month and report their efforts. I felt like I was their health coach and cheerleader.
My career in family medicine
Entering the job market allowed me to form my philosophy of treating patients with a mind, body, and spirit approach. I chose to practice value-based care, which aligns with my lifestyle and preventative medicine approach .
I currently practice in a small family medicine–only clinic that is part of a larger multispecialty system. Primary care specialties in my organization are valued, respected and central to a patient’s well being and care. We are encouraged to spend time with patients, assess barriers to care and work collaboratively with our healthcare team, so that preventative medicine approaches take the lead in a patient’s health. This supportive culture and environment is one where my passion for food as medicine has thrived.
One day I forgot to pack a lunch and instead brought a grocery bag of items to make a salad. When I realized I made too much, I sent an email to my staff to get some “free salad in my office.” This serendipitous moment started an informal office “salad club” each week. Continued support from my staff and leadership, allowed me to consider further extending this teaching to my patients and my colleagues.
Three years ago, I helped adopt a sustainable plant-forward menu for our physician meetings, complete with a recipe from the menu for physicians to replicate at home or give to their patients.
I also pursued adoption of shared medical appointments for our medical group. These appointments apply the “see one, do one, teach one” model in medicine, but with culinary medicine as the focus.
Knowing that my patients are all connected to their families through food, I sought this as an opportunity to dive in further with wellness opportunities at their next meal. After almost 2 years of working on this project, I was able to host my first shared medical appointment with a group of patients on March 12, 2020. The next day schools closed, lockdowns occurred, and the world changed.
Opportunities highlighted by the pandemic
We always knew health care was broken but adding the increasingly longer hours and COVID vaccine–hesitant patients that the pandemic brought made everything look dark at times. What has helped me stay hopeful and energetic for system changes is feeling gratitude and seeking bright lights.
My experiences seeing patients in telehealth visits are examples of some of the bright lights I found in the pandemic. During these visits, patients showed me something from their pantry, and we’d go over nutritional labels together.
Additionally, my patients became engaged with their own conditions and wanted to improve them because of news articles highlighting risk factors for COVID-19, such as obesity. I had an active audience when it came to talking about food-as-medicine approaches to improving risk factors and immunity. And since everyone was listening, I didn’t stop at food. I also talked about physical health, stress resiliency, planetary diets, sleep, connections, and lastly vaccines!
Once the vaccines were distributed, I naturally gravitated to having those conversations with patients and colleagues and on social media. Plus, the pandemic gave us moments of simple times to slow down, take more rests, be less overscheduled, consider work-life priorities, and, lastly, to be okay with not being totally okay.
In practicing primary care, we have a unique role in seeing medicine from a whole body, whole person, whole family perspective. There is an opportunity to highlight what is broken in medicine and aim to make it whole.
I’m currently looking at shared medical appointments as a new standard way to provide care to all patients, because it improves access, provides better quality visits and aligns my values, mission, and purpose.
In the midst of the pandemic, I helped advocate for a sustainable plant-forward menu that was launched throughout four different hospitals in the Sharp HealthCare system, in California, in 2020. Knowing that patients were served a menu I played a role in, gave me solace.
As part of the hospital food and nutrition team, I am grateful for the opportunity I have to work on a broader mission to address social determinants of health and seek opportunities to help the system work for our patients.
Public health communication has been lacking in the pandemic, but another bright light is that we were still the trusted messengers to our patients and our communities. I’m continually honored and humbled to be trusted with a whole family’s health.
Dr. Neison practices family medicine and culinary medicine at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, and is cochair of climate and planetary health for SRS Medical Group. You can follow her on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook @Flavors4WellnessMD.
A few years ago I tracked down my medical school interviewer to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do what I felt I was called to do. I was surprised that, after 15 years, he actually remembered me and remembered details like walking to the courtyard to meet my father who’d driven me to the interview.
Sharing my gratitude and letting him know I was happy felt important to me.
Choosing to practice family medicine has a lot to do with why I am happy in my career today.
One of my frustrations with health care had been its emphasis on treatment of sickness, rather than a broader one that incorporated prevention of sickness. During my third year of medical school, I was following a family and sports medicine faculty member who was focusing on aspects of lifestyle medicine to help a patient remain active and age gracefully. Seeing opportunities to practice preventative medicine in family medicine made me realize the specialty was the perfect fit for me.
Food as medicine
While participating in rotations I also realized you can find a subspecialty within family medicine.
During my fourth year of medical school, I followed an attending who was seeing a patient for hypertension, prediabetes and hypercholesterolemia. The attending told the patient to eat “healthier,” gave her a handout, and scheduled a follow up appointment for 6 months later.
My thoughts were: “That’s it? That’s how we counsel patients to improve their dietary habits?”
As the patient was leaving the exam room, I asked her what type of oil she cooked with, and I proceeded to share culinary tips from my mother – who was a self-taught and early adopter of the food-as-medicine movement.
Once I started my residency, I knew I’d want to incorporate lifestyle and dietary approaches at many of my patient visits.
I scheduled patients every month to monitor their weight, follow up on chronic conditions, but more importantly, to engage them in their health and empower them to make small lifestyle changes each month and report their efforts. I felt like I was their health coach and cheerleader.
My career in family medicine
Entering the job market allowed me to form my philosophy of treating patients with a mind, body, and spirit approach. I chose to practice value-based care, which aligns with my lifestyle and preventative medicine approach .
I currently practice in a small family medicine–only clinic that is part of a larger multispecialty system. Primary care specialties in my organization are valued, respected and central to a patient’s well being and care. We are encouraged to spend time with patients, assess barriers to care and work collaboratively with our healthcare team, so that preventative medicine approaches take the lead in a patient’s health. This supportive culture and environment is one where my passion for food as medicine has thrived.
One day I forgot to pack a lunch and instead brought a grocery bag of items to make a salad. When I realized I made too much, I sent an email to my staff to get some “free salad in my office.” This serendipitous moment started an informal office “salad club” each week. Continued support from my staff and leadership, allowed me to consider further extending this teaching to my patients and my colleagues.
Three years ago, I helped adopt a sustainable plant-forward menu for our physician meetings, complete with a recipe from the menu for physicians to replicate at home or give to their patients.
I also pursued adoption of shared medical appointments for our medical group. These appointments apply the “see one, do one, teach one” model in medicine, but with culinary medicine as the focus.
Knowing that my patients are all connected to their families through food, I sought this as an opportunity to dive in further with wellness opportunities at their next meal. After almost 2 years of working on this project, I was able to host my first shared medical appointment with a group of patients on March 12, 2020. The next day schools closed, lockdowns occurred, and the world changed.
Opportunities highlighted by the pandemic
We always knew health care was broken but adding the increasingly longer hours and COVID vaccine–hesitant patients that the pandemic brought made everything look dark at times. What has helped me stay hopeful and energetic for system changes is feeling gratitude and seeking bright lights.
My experiences seeing patients in telehealth visits are examples of some of the bright lights I found in the pandemic. During these visits, patients showed me something from their pantry, and we’d go over nutritional labels together.
Additionally, my patients became engaged with their own conditions and wanted to improve them because of news articles highlighting risk factors for COVID-19, such as obesity. I had an active audience when it came to talking about food-as-medicine approaches to improving risk factors and immunity. And since everyone was listening, I didn’t stop at food. I also talked about physical health, stress resiliency, planetary diets, sleep, connections, and lastly vaccines!
Once the vaccines were distributed, I naturally gravitated to having those conversations with patients and colleagues and on social media. Plus, the pandemic gave us moments of simple times to slow down, take more rests, be less overscheduled, consider work-life priorities, and, lastly, to be okay with not being totally okay.
In practicing primary care, we have a unique role in seeing medicine from a whole body, whole person, whole family perspective. There is an opportunity to highlight what is broken in medicine and aim to make it whole.
I’m currently looking at shared medical appointments as a new standard way to provide care to all patients, because it improves access, provides better quality visits and aligns my values, mission, and purpose.
In the midst of the pandemic, I helped advocate for a sustainable plant-forward menu that was launched throughout four different hospitals in the Sharp HealthCare system, in California, in 2020. Knowing that patients were served a menu I played a role in, gave me solace.
As part of the hospital food and nutrition team, I am grateful for the opportunity I have to work on a broader mission to address social determinants of health and seek opportunities to help the system work for our patients.
Public health communication has been lacking in the pandemic, but another bright light is that we were still the trusted messengers to our patients and our communities. I’m continually honored and humbled to be trusted with a whole family’s health.
Dr. Neison practices family medicine and culinary medicine at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, and is cochair of climate and planetary health for SRS Medical Group. You can follow her on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook @Flavors4WellnessMD.
A few years ago I tracked down my medical school interviewer to thank him for giving me the opportunity to do what I felt I was called to do. I was surprised that, after 15 years, he actually remembered me and remembered details like walking to the courtyard to meet my father who’d driven me to the interview.
Sharing my gratitude and letting him know I was happy felt important to me.
Choosing to practice family medicine has a lot to do with why I am happy in my career today.
One of my frustrations with health care had been its emphasis on treatment of sickness, rather than a broader one that incorporated prevention of sickness. During my third year of medical school, I was following a family and sports medicine faculty member who was focusing on aspects of lifestyle medicine to help a patient remain active and age gracefully. Seeing opportunities to practice preventative medicine in family medicine made me realize the specialty was the perfect fit for me.
Food as medicine
While participating in rotations I also realized you can find a subspecialty within family medicine.
During my fourth year of medical school, I followed an attending who was seeing a patient for hypertension, prediabetes and hypercholesterolemia. The attending told the patient to eat “healthier,” gave her a handout, and scheduled a follow up appointment for 6 months later.
My thoughts were: “That’s it? That’s how we counsel patients to improve their dietary habits?”
As the patient was leaving the exam room, I asked her what type of oil she cooked with, and I proceeded to share culinary tips from my mother – who was a self-taught and early adopter of the food-as-medicine movement.
Once I started my residency, I knew I’d want to incorporate lifestyle and dietary approaches at many of my patient visits.
I scheduled patients every month to monitor their weight, follow up on chronic conditions, but more importantly, to engage them in their health and empower them to make small lifestyle changes each month and report their efforts. I felt like I was their health coach and cheerleader.
My career in family medicine
Entering the job market allowed me to form my philosophy of treating patients with a mind, body, and spirit approach. I chose to practice value-based care, which aligns with my lifestyle and preventative medicine approach .
I currently practice in a small family medicine–only clinic that is part of a larger multispecialty system. Primary care specialties in my organization are valued, respected and central to a patient’s well being and care. We are encouraged to spend time with patients, assess barriers to care and work collaboratively with our healthcare team, so that preventative medicine approaches take the lead in a patient’s health. This supportive culture and environment is one where my passion for food as medicine has thrived.
One day I forgot to pack a lunch and instead brought a grocery bag of items to make a salad. When I realized I made too much, I sent an email to my staff to get some “free salad in my office.” This serendipitous moment started an informal office “salad club” each week. Continued support from my staff and leadership, allowed me to consider further extending this teaching to my patients and my colleagues.
Three years ago, I helped adopt a sustainable plant-forward menu for our physician meetings, complete with a recipe from the menu for physicians to replicate at home or give to their patients.
I also pursued adoption of shared medical appointments for our medical group. These appointments apply the “see one, do one, teach one” model in medicine, but with culinary medicine as the focus.
Knowing that my patients are all connected to their families through food, I sought this as an opportunity to dive in further with wellness opportunities at their next meal. After almost 2 years of working on this project, I was able to host my first shared medical appointment with a group of patients on March 12, 2020. The next day schools closed, lockdowns occurred, and the world changed.
Opportunities highlighted by the pandemic
We always knew health care was broken but adding the increasingly longer hours and COVID vaccine–hesitant patients that the pandemic brought made everything look dark at times. What has helped me stay hopeful and energetic for system changes is feeling gratitude and seeking bright lights.
My experiences seeing patients in telehealth visits are examples of some of the bright lights I found in the pandemic. During these visits, patients showed me something from their pantry, and we’d go over nutritional labels together.
Additionally, my patients became engaged with their own conditions and wanted to improve them because of news articles highlighting risk factors for COVID-19, such as obesity. I had an active audience when it came to talking about food-as-medicine approaches to improving risk factors and immunity. And since everyone was listening, I didn’t stop at food. I also talked about physical health, stress resiliency, planetary diets, sleep, connections, and lastly vaccines!
Once the vaccines were distributed, I naturally gravitated to having those conversations with patients and colleagues and on social media. Plus, the pandemic gave us moments of simple times to slow down, take more rests, be less overscheduled, consider work-life priorities, and, lastly, to be okay with not being totally okay.
In practicing primary care, we have a unique role in seeing medicine from a whole body, whole person, whole family perspective. There is an opportunity to highlight what is broken in medicine and aim to make it whole.
I’m currently looking at shared medical appointments as a new standard way to provide care to all patients, because it improves access, provides better quality visits and aligns my values, mission, and purpose.
In the midst of the pandemic, I helped advocate for a sustainable plant-forward menu that was launched throughout four different hospitals in the Sharp HealthCare system, in California, in 2020. Knowing that patients were served a menu I played a role in, gave me solace.
As part of the hospital food and nutrition team, I am grateful for the opportunity I have to work on a broader mission to address social determinants of health and seek opportunities to help the system work for our patients.
Public health communication has been lacking in the pandemic, but another bright light is that we were still the trusted messengers to our patients and our communities. I’m continually honored and humbled to be trusted with a whole family’s health.
Dr. Neison practices family medicine and culinary medicine at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, and is cochair of climate and planetary health for SRS Medical Group. You can follow her on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook @Flavors4WellnessMD.
Productively working together
Recently, some liberal colleagues urged a boycott of a conference in Orlando, Fla., because of various actions by its Republican state governor. At the same time, conservative colleagues advocated the boycott because business actions of Disney have become too leftist. Concerns about spreading COVID-19 at the national gathering have become small, compared with the desire to virtue-signal political viewpoints.
The 1960s in the United States were a time of social upheaval and polarization with many similarities to modern America. One difference is that, after a few years of social revolution, society emphasized bridging the differences. Politicians talked about reaching across the aisle. Religious groups sought ecumenical and interfaith ventures. Business and educational institutions promoted equal opportunity programs. The emphasis was finding common ground.
A half century later, the polarized work environment of medical organizations in 2022 has led to emphasis on cancel culture, litmus tests, and finding reasons not to work with others and to silence dissent. A professional working in a polarized environment faces frequent challenges that pit ethical and political principles against the pragmatic need to set and accomplish team goals that productively care for patients and support staff. One of the worst things societies can do for children’s health is to perpetuate the paralyzing divisiveness of modern politics.
As Justice Stephen Breyer nears retirement from the Supreme Court, I reflect back to 1994 when, on the day of his nomination to the court by President Clinton, Justice Breyer at a press conference said, “What [the law is] supposed to do seen as a whole is allow all people, all people, to live together in a society where they have so many different views, so many different needs, but to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better so that they can work productively together.”
I generally reject secondary boycotts and the hatred they spew. True inclusivity does not divide. True inclusivity is very messy. It rejects tyrants who insist on litmus tests to prove wokeness. Every red state has Democrats and every blue state has Republicans. If you are dedicated to loving your neighbor, I think it is necessary professionally to focus on who you will work with to improve the world. If woke extremism says you can only work with someone who echoes the same end of the blue or red political spectrum as yourself, that is not loving, not inclusive, and not productive.
My advice is to focus on the values, goals, and pathways you share with colleagues rather than using political or social differences to prejudice you against working with someone toward a common goal. The old adage is that politics makes strange bedfellows. People with diverse, divergent, and even opposed life views can work together to build schools and roads that benefit the community, contrary to the polarized examples that have flooded Washington, D.C., for the past 2 decades. (Generation Z: Take this as testimony from a Boomer who saw how politics used to work, especially in small towns.)
My other advice is to believe in free speech, but it requires a long civics lesson to understand what that means. Facebook promulgating unvetted posts as news feeds is not free speech. Facebook creating profiles so the app creates tailored echo chambers of misinformation is not free speech. President Obama ignoring the problem for 8 years as the iPhone became ubiquitous did not help. President Trump’s outreach to the masses via Twitter did not model responsible free speech. Surreptitiously promoting certain political viewpoints in math textbooks is not responsible behavior and has generated mistrust and the replacement of boards of education. Elon Musk wanting to buy Twitter is an unknown.
I won’t attempt to offer any pearls of wisdom on free speech in this column. It is a complex subject. I will suggest that doing a better job with free speech will save far more lives than eliminating crib bumpers.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Recently, some liberal colleagues urged a boycott of a conference in Orlando, Fla., because of various actions by its Republican state governor. At the same time, conservative colleagues advocated the boycott because business actions of Disney have become too leftist. Concerns about spreading COVID-19 at the national gathering have become small, compared with the desire to virtue-signal political viewpoints.
The 1960s in the United States were a time of social upheaval and polarization with many similarities to modern America. One difference is that, after a few years of social revolution, society emphasized bridging the differences. Politicians talked about reaching across the aisle. Religious groups sought ecumenical and interfaith ventures. Business and educational institutions promoted equal opportunity programs. The emphasis was finding common ground.
A half century later, the polarized work environment of medical organizations in 2022 has led to emphasis on cancel culture, litmus tests, and finding reasons not to work with others and to silence dissent. A professional working in a polarized environment faces frequent challenges that pit ethical and political principles against the pragmatic need to set and accomplish team goals that productively care for patients and support staff. One of the worst things societies can do for children’s health is to perpetuate the paralyzing divisiveness of modern politics.
As Justice Stephen Breyer nears retirement from the Supreme Court, I reflect back to 1994 when, on the day of his nomination to the court by President Clinton, Justice Breyer at a press conference said, “What [the law is] supposed to do seen as a whole is allow all people, all people, to live together in a society where they have so many different views, so many different needs, but to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better so that they can work productively together.”
I generally reject secondary boycotts and the hatred they spew. True inclusivity does not divide. True inclusivity is very messy. It rejects tyrants who insist on litmus tests to prove wokeness. Every red state has Democrats and every blue state has Republicans. If you are dedicated to loving your neighbor, I think it is necessary professionally to focus on who you will work with to improve the world. If woke extremism says you can only work with someone who echoes the same end of the blue or red political spectrum as yourself, that is not loving, not inclusive, and not productive.
My advice is to focus on the values, goals, and pathways you share with colleagues rather than using political or social differences to prejudice you against working with someone toward a common goal. The old adage is that politics makes strange bedfellows. People with diverse, divergent, and even opposed life views can work together to build schools and roads that benefit the community, contrary to the polarized examples that have flooded Washington, D.C., for the past 2 decades. (Generation Z: Take this as testimony from a Boomer who saw how politics used to work, especially in small towns.)
My other advice is to believe in free speech, but it requires a long civics lesson to understand what that means. Facebook promulgating unvetted posts as news feeds is not free speech. Facebook creating profiles so the app creates tailored echo chambers of misinformation is not free speech. President Obama ignoring the problem for 8 years as the iPhone became ubiquitous did not help. President Trump’s outreach to the masses via Twitter did not model responsible free speech. Surreptitiously promoting certain political viewpoints in math textbooks is not responsible behavior and has generated mistrust and the replacement of boards of education. Elon Musk wanting to buy Twitter is an unknown.
I won’t attempt to offer any pearls of wisdom on free speech in this column. It is a complex subject. I will suggest that doing a better job with free speech will save far more lives than eliminating crib bumpers.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Recently, some liberal colleagues urged a boycott of a conference in Orlando, Fla., because of various actions by its Republican state governor. At the same time, conservative colleagues advocated the boycott because business actions of Disney have become too leftist. Concerns about spreading COVID-19 at the national gathering have become small, compared with the desire to virtue-signal political viewpoints.
The 1960s in the United States were a time of social upheaval and polarization with many similarities to modern America. One difference is that, after a few years of social revolution, society emphasized bridging the differences. Politicians talked about reaching across the aisle. Religious groups sought ecumenical and interfaith ventures. Business and educational institutions promoted equal opportunity programs. The emphasis was finding common ground.
A half century later, the polarized work environment of medical organizations in 2022 has led to emphasis on cancel culture, litmus tests, and finding reasons not to work with others and to silence dissent. A professional working in a polarized environment faces frequent challenges that pit ethical and political principles against the pragmatic need to set and accomplish team goals that productively care for patients and support staff. One of the worst things societies can do for children’s health is to perpetuate the paralyzing divisiveness of modern politics.
As Justice Stephen Breyer nears retirement from the Supreme Court, I reflect back to 1994 when, on the day of his nomination to the court by President Clinton, Justice Breyer at a press conference said, “What [the law is] supposed to do seen as a whole is allow all people, all people, to live together in a society where they have so many different views, so many different needs, but to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better so that they can work productively together.”
I generally reject secondary boycotts and the hatred they spew. True inclusivity does not divide. True inclusivity is very messy. It rejects tyrants who insist on litmus tests to prove wokeness. Every red state has Democrats and every blue state has Republicans. If you are dedicated to loving your neighbor, I think it is necessary professionally to focus on who you will work with to improve the world. If woke extremism says you can only work with someone who echoes the same end of the blue or red political spectrum as yourself, that is not loving, not inclusive, and not productive.
My advice is to focus on the values, goals, and pathways you share with colleagues rather than using political or social differences to prejudice you against working with someone toward a common goal. The old adage is that politics makes strange bedfellows. People with diverse, divergent, and even opposed life views can work together to build schools and roads that benefit the community, contrary to the polarized examples that have flooded Washington, D.C., for the past 2 decades. (Generation Z: Take this as testimony from a Boomer who saw how politics used to work, especially in small towns.)
My other advice is to believe in free speech, but it requires a long civics lesson to understand what that means. Facebook promulgating unvetted posts as news feeds is not free speech. Facebook creating profiles so the app creates tailored echo chambers of misinformation is not free speech. President Obama ignoring the problem for 8 years as the iPhone became ubiquitous did not help. President Trump’s outreach to the masses via Twitter did not model responsible free speech. Surreptitiously promoting certain political viewpoints in math textbooks is not responsible behavior and has generated mistrust and the replacement of boards of education. Elon Musk wanting to buy Twitter is an unknown.
I won’t attempt to offer any pearls of wisdom on free speech in this column. It is a complex subject. I will suggest that doing a better job with free speech will save far more lives than eliminating crib bumpers.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].
Up in smoke: Cannabis-related ED visits increased 18-fold for older Californians
Researchers in California found an 18-fold increase in the rate of cannabis-related trips to the ED visits among adults over age 65 in the state from 2005 to 2019.
Addressing potential harms of cannabis use among older adults, who face heightened risk for adverse reactions to the substance, “is urgently required,” the researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.
The researchers advised doctors to discuss cannabis use with older patients and screen older adults for cannabis use. Those living with multiple chronic conditions and taking multiple medications are especially likely to be at risk for harm, coinvestigator Benjamin Han, MD, MPH, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
Dr. Han added that “very little” is understood about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the elderly, and more studies are needed “so that clinicians can have data-informed discussions with their patients.”
California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and recreational marijuana in 2016.
The researchers used diagnostic code data from California’s nonmilitary acute care hospitals, collected by the state’s Department of Healthcare Access and Information, to calculate annual rates of cannabis-related visits per 10,000 ED visits.
ED trips up sharply among older adults
Rates of cannabis-related visits increased significantly for all older adult age ranges (P < .001), according to the researchers. Among those aged 65-74 years, the rate increased about 15-fold, from 44.9 per 10,000 visits in 2005 to 714.5 per 100,000 in 2019; for ages 75-84, the rate increased about 22-fold, from 8.4 to 193.9 per 10,000; and for those 85 and older the rate jumped nearly 18-fold, from 2.1 to 39.2 per 10,000.
The greatest increase occurred in visits categorized in diagnostic codes as cannabis abuse and unspecified use. Cannabis dependence and cannabis poisoning accounted for only a small fraction of cases, the investigators found.
The researchers did not have data on specific reasons for a visit, or whether patients had smoked or ingested marijuana products. They also could not discern whether patients had used delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which has psychoactive properties, or cannabidiol, which typically does not have the same mind-altering effects.
Dr. Han said the data may not present a full picture of marijuana-related ED visits. “It is important to recognize that older adults have lived through the very putative language around drug use – including cannabis – as part of the racist war on drugs,” which could lead them to omit having used drugs during the intake process.
A 2017 study linked cannabis use among older adults with more injuries, which in turn led to greater emergency department use. Brian Kaskie, PhD, associate professor in health management and policy at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview that the new findings show a state-specific, but alarming trend, and that more research is needed.
“Were these first-time users who were not familiar with anxiety-inducing aspects of cannabis use and took high potency products? Did they complete any education about how to use cannabis?” said Dr. Kaskie, who was not involved in the new study. “Were the ER visits for relatively benign, nonemergent reasons or were these ... visits an outcome of a tragic, harmful event like a car accident or overdose?”
Dr. Han and Dr. Kaskie disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers in California found an 18-fold increase in the rate of cannabis-related trips to the ED visits among adults over age 65 in the state from 2005 to 2019.
Addressing potential harms of cannabis use among older adults, who face heightened risk for adverse reactions to the substance, “is urgently required,” the researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.
The researchers advised doctors to discuss cannabis use with older patients and screen older adults for cannabis use. Those living with multiple chronic conditions and taking multiple medications are especially likely to be at risk for harm, coinvestigator Benjamin Han, MD, MPH, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
Dr. Han added that “very little” is understood about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the elderly, and more studies are needed “so that clinicians can have data-informed discussions with their patients.”
California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and recreational marijuana in 2016.
The researchers used diagnostic code data from California’s nonmilitary acute care hospitals, collected by the state’s Department of Healthcare Access and Information, to calculate annual rates of cannabis-related visits per 10,000 ED visits.
ED trips up sharply among older adults
Rates of cannabis-related visits increased significantly for all older adult age ranges (P < .001), according to the researchers. Among those aged 65-74 years, the rate increased about 15-fold, from 44.9 per 10,000 visits in 2005 to 714.5 per 100,000 in 2019; for ages 75-84, the rate increased about 22-fold, from 8.4 to 193.9 per 10,000; and for those 85 and older the rate jumped nearly 18-fold, from 2.1 to 39.2 per 10,000.
The greatest increase occurred in visits categorized in diagnostic codes as cannabis abuse and unspecified use. Cannabis dependence and cannabis poisoning accounted for only a small fraction of cases, the investigators found.
The researchers did not have data on specific reasons for a visit, or whether patients had smoked or ingested marijuana products. They also could not discern whether patients had used delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which has psychoactive properties, or cannabidiol, which typically does not have the same mind-altering effects.
Dr. Han said the data may not present a full picture of marijuana-related ED visits. “It is important to recognize that older adults have lived through the very putative language around drug use – including cannabis – as part of the racist war on drugs,” which could lead them to omit having used drugs during the intake process.
A 2017 study linked cannabis use among older adults with more injuries, which in turn led to greater emergency department use. Brian Kaskie, PhD, associate professor in health management and policy at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview that the new findings show a state-specific, but alarming trend, and that more research is needed.
“Were these first-time users who were not familiar with anxiety-inducing aspects of cannabis use and took high potency products? Did they complete any education about how to use cannabis?” said Dr. Kaskie, who was not involved in the new study. “Were the ER visits for relatively benign, nonemergent reasons or were these ... visits an outcome of a tragic, harmful event like a car accident or overdose?”
Dr. Han and Dr. Kaskie disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers in California found an 18-fold increase in the rate of cannabis-related trips to the ED visits among adults over age 65 in the state from 2005 to 2019.
Addressing potential harms of cannabis use among older adults, who face heightened risk for adverse reactions to the substance, “is urgently required,” the researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.
The researchers advised doctors to discuss cannabis use with older patients and screen older adults for cannabis use. Those living with multiple chronic conditions and taking multiple medications are especially likely to be at risk for harm, coinvestigator Benjamin Han, MD, MPH, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
Dr. Han added that “very little” is understood about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the elderly, and more studies are needed “so that clinicians can have data-informed discussions with their patients.”
California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 and recreational marijuana in 2016.
The researchers used diagnostic code data from California’s nonmilitary acute care hospitals, collected by the state’s Department of Healthcare Access and Information, to calculate annual rates of cannabis-related visits per 10,000 ED visits.
ED trips up sharply among older adults
Rates of cannabis-related visits increased significantly for all older adult age ranges (P < .001), according to the researchers. Among those aged 65-74 years, the rate increased about 15-fold, from 44.9 per 10,000 visits in 2005 to 714.5 per 100,000 in 2019; for ages 75-84, the rate increased about 22-fold, from 8.4 to 193.9 per 10,000; and for those 85 and older the rate jumped nearly 18-fold, from 2.1 to 39.2 per 10,000.
The greatest increase occurred in visits categorized in diagnostic codes as cannabis abuse and unspecified use. Cannabis dependence and cannabis poisoning accounted for only a small fraction of cases, the investigators found.
The researchers did not have data on specific reasons for a visit, or whether patients had smoked or ingested marijuana products. They also could not discern whether patients had used delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which has psychoactive properties, or cannabidiol, which typically does not have the same mind-altering effects.
Dr. Han said the data may not present a full picture of marijuana-related ED visits. “It is important to recognize that older adults have lived through the very putative language around drug use – including cannabis – as part of the racist war on drugs,” which could lead them to omit having used drugs during the intake process.
A 2017 study linked cannabis use among older adults with more injuries, which in turn led to greater emergency department use. Brian Kaskie, PhD, associate professor in health management and policy at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview that the new findings show a state-specific, but alarming trend, and that more research is needed.
“Were these first-time users who were not familiar with anxiety-inducing aspects of cannabis use and took high potency products? Did they complete any education about how to use cannabis?” said Dr. Kaskie, who was not involved in the new study. “Were the ER visits for relatively benign, nonemergent reasons or were these ... visits an outcome of a tragic, harmful event like a car accident or overdose?”
Dr. Han and Dr. Kaskie disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AGS 2022
Tool helps health system cut risky scripts for older adults
In the largest implementation yet of the tool, designed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to decrease the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), Lifespan, a nonprofit system whose partners include Brown University, Providence, R.I., reported a significant drop in the number of such prescriptions to older adults on discharge from the emergency department (ED).
The number of PIMs among monthly prescriptions fell by roughly 26% at Lifespan’s three adult acute care EDs after the system adopted EQUiPPED – Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department. The VA deployed a version of the tool in 2013 to address the lack of training most emergency clinicians receive in the management of geriatric medications.
The model “should be implemented in other states and, with greater replication, could shape national policy regarding quality of care for older adults,” according to the researchers, who reported the results May 12 at the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) 2022 Annual Scientific Meeting, Orlando.
Older adults are three times as likely as younger patients to wind up in an ED because of medication-related harms. This is in part due to the greater number of prescriptions U.S. adults older than 65 years take daily.
A key quality measure
Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other groups have deemed minimizing PIMs an important quality measure, most EDs lack an expert in geriatric prescribing, Elizabeth Goldberg, MD, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Brown University, told this news organization.
With EQUiPPED, clinicians receive access to geriatric medication order sets embedded in electronic health records, individualized benchmark reports, and education about medication safety in older adults. PIMs are defined by the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and include drugs such as proton-pump inhibitors and antipsychotics.
Lifespan’s program involved 362 clinicians who treat about 230,000 patients annually – 40,000 of them aged 65 and older. Dr. Goldberg said implementing the program in such a large population could “really move the needle for older adults” by reducing falls, improving cognitive function, and preventing harm from the use of medication.
She and fellow researchers examined ED prescribing 13 months before and 16 months after they had implemented EQUiPPED, in August and September of 2019. Of clinicians who participated, 48% were attending physicians, 37% were residents, and 34% were advanced practice providers.
PIM prescribing dropped from 8.93% prior to implementation (95% confidence interval: 8.5%-9.36%) to 6.59% after (95% CI: 6.2%-6.98%; P < .001). Before implementation, 1,495 of 16,681 prescribed medications were considered inappropriate, compared with 1,044 of 15,818 medications after, according to the researchers. The biggest declines in prescribing involved antihistamines, muscle relaxants, and benzodiazepines.
Despite the improvements, the system did not meet a goal of reducing PIMs to less than 5%. Dr. Goldberg said educating the large number of clinicians, some of whom rotated in and out of the ED, proved particularly challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic also potentially diverted attention from the quality improvement project, she said.
In addition to its size, the project was notable because it was supported by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island. Dr. Goldberg said obtaining private funding proved to be a quicker and less competitive process than obtaining a government grant. Other institutions interested in running similar studies may need to find insurers that are in the Medicare Advantage market or that have a significant number of younger enrollees with chronic conditions, such as kidney disease, who may benefit from more careful prescribing practices, she said.
The new study builds on previous research, such as a 2017 study that showed that EQUiPPED reduced PIM prescribing at four VA hospitals. Findings from a more recent rollout at three academic health systems suggested that the model might also be effective in targeting the overuse of specific drugs in facilities in which PIM prescribing is already low.
A researcher in those earlier studies, Susan Nicole Hastings, MD, a geriatric medicine specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the Durham VA Health Care System, told this news organization that Lifespan’s experience supports the idea that “with the right attention to balancing fidelity and tailoring for the new setting, there is tremendous potential for moving successful programs from the VA to other health systems.”
Ann E. Vandenberg, PhD, MPH, a gerontologist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the fragmented nature of the American health care system makes it difficult to disseminate EQUiPPED widely, but interoperability applications that pull data from different electronic health records could help hospital systems to adopt the program without undergoing site-specific customization.
Dr. Hastings and Dr. Vandenberg have received research funding to study EQUiPPED from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Hastings also received research funding from the VA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the largest implementation yet of the tool, designed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to decrease the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), Lifespan, a nonprofit system whose partners include Brown University, Providence, R.I., reported a significant drop in the number of such prescriptions to older adults on discharge from the emergency department (ED).
The number of PIMs among monthly prescriptions fell by roughly 26% at Lifespan’s three adult acute care EDs after the system adopted EQUiPPED – Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department. The VA deployed a version of the tool in 2013 to address the lack of training most emergency clinicians receive in the management of geriatric medications.
The model “should be implemented in other states and, with greater replication, could shape national policy regarding quality of care for older adults,” according to the researchers, who reported the results May 12 at the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) 2022 Annual Scientific Meeting, Orlando.
Older adults are three times as likely as younger patients to wind up in an ED because of medication-related harms. This is in part due to the greater number of prescriptions U.S. adults older than 65 years take daily.
A key quality measure
Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other groups have deemed minimizing PIMs an important quality measure, most EDs lack an expert in geriatric prescribing, Elizabeth Goldberg, MD, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Brown University, told this news organization.
With EQUiPPED, clinicians receive access to geriatric medication order sets embedded in electronic health records, individualized benchmark reports, and education about medication safety in older adults. PIMs are defined by the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and include drugs such as proton-pump inhibitors and antipsychotics.
Lifespan’s program involved 362 clinicians who treat about 230,000 patients annually – 40,000 of them aged 65 and older. Dr. Goldberg said implementing the program in such a large population could “really move the needle for older adults” by reducing falls, improving cognitive function, and preventing harm from the use of medication.
She and fellow researchers examined ED prescribing 13 months before and 16 months after they had implemented EQUiPPED, in August and September of 2019. Of clinicians who participated, 48% were attending physicians, 37% were residents, and 34% were advanced practice providers.
PIM prescribing dropped from 8.93% prior to implementation (95% confidence interval: 8.5%-9.36%) to 6.59% after (95% CI: 6.2%-6.98%; P < .001). Before implementation, 1,495 of 16,681 prescribed medications were considered inappropriate, compared with 1,044 of 15,818 medications after, according to the researchers. The biggest declines in prescribing involved antihistamines, muscle relaxants, and benzodiazepines.
Despite the improvements, the system did not meet a goal of reducing PIMs to less than 5%. Dr. Goldberg said educating the large number of clinicians, some of whom rotated in and out of the ED, proved particularly challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic also potentially diverted attention from the quality improvement project, she said.
In addition to its size, the project was notable because it was supported by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island. Dr. Goldberg said obtaining private funding proved to be a quicker and less competitive process than obtaining a government grant. Other institutions interested in running similar studies may need to find insurers that are in the Medicare Advantage market or that have a significant number of younger enrollees with chronic conditions, such as kidney disease, who may benefit from more careful prescribing practices, she said.
The new study builds on previous research, such as a 2017 study that showed that EQUiPPED reduced PIM prescribing at four VA hospitals. Findings from a more recent rollout at three academic health systems suggested that the model might also be effective in targeting the overuse of specific drugs in facilities in which PIM prescribing is already low.
A researcher in those earlier studies, Susan Nicole Hastings, MD, a geriatric medicine specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the Durham VA Health Care System, told this news organization that Lifespan’s experience supports the idea that “with the right attention to balancing fidelity and tailoring for the new setting, there is tremendous potential for moving successful programs from the VA to other health systems.”
Ann E. Vandenberg, PhD, MPH, a gerontologist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the fragmented nature of the American health care system makes it difficult to disseminate EQUiPPED widely, but interoperability applications that pull data from different electronic health records could help hospital systems to adopt the program without undergoing site-specific customization.
Dr. Hastings and Dr. Vandenberg have received research funding to study EQUiPPED from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Hastings also received research funding from the VA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the largest implementation yet of the tool, designed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to decrease the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), Lifespan, a nonprofit system whose partners include Brown University, Providence, R.I., reported a significant drop in the number of such prescriptions to older adults on discharge from the emergency department (ED).
The number of PIMs among monthly prescriptions fell by roughly 26% at Lifespan’s three adult acute care EDs after the system adopted EQUiPPED – Enhancing Quality of Prescribing Practices for Older Adults Discharged from the Emergency Department. The VA deployed a version of the tool in 2013 to address the lack of training most emergency clinicians receive in the management of geriatric medications.
The model “should be implemented in other states and, with greater replication, could shape national policy regarding quality of care for older adults,” according to the researchers, who reported the results May 12 at the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) 2022 Annual Scientific Meeting, Orlando.
Older adults are three times as likely as younger patients to wind up in an ED because of medication-related harms. This is in part due to the greater number of prescriptions U.S. adults older than 65 years take daily.
A key quality measure
Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other groups have deemed minimizing PIMs an important quality measure, most EDs lack an expert in geriatric prescribing, Elizabeth Goldberg, MD, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Brown University, told this news organization.
With EQUiPPED, clinicians receive access to geriatric medication order sets embedded in electronic health records, individualized benchmark reports, and education about medication safety in older adults. PIMs are defined by the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and include drugs such as proton-pump inhibitors and antipsychotics.
Lifespan’s program involved 362 clinicians who treat about 230,000 patients annually – 40,000 of them aged 65 and older. Dr. Goldberg said implementing the program in such a large population could “really move the needle for older adults” by reducing falls, improving cognitive function, and preventing harm from the use of medication.
She and fellow researchers examined ED prescribing 13 months before and 16 months after they had implemented EQUiPPED, in August and September of 2019. Of clinicians who participated, 48% were attending physicians, 37% were residents, and 34% were advanced practice providers.
PIM prescribing dropped from 8.93% prior to implementation (95% confidence interval: 8.5%-9.36%) to 6.59% after (95% CI: 6.2%-6.98%; P < .001). Before implementation, 1,495 of 16,681 prescribed medications were considered inappropriate, compared with 1,044 of 15,818 medications after, according to the researchers. The biggest declines in prescribing involved antihistamines, muscle relaxants, and benzodiazepines.
Despite the improvements, the system did not meet a goal of reducing PIMs to less than 5%. Dr. Goldberg said educating the large number of clinicians, some of whom rotated in and out of the ED, proved particularly challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic also potentially diverted attention from the quality improvement project, she said.
In addition to its size, the project was notable because it was supported by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island. Dr. Goldberg said obtaining private funding proved to be a quicker and less competitive process than obtaining a government grant. Other institutions interested in running similar studies may need to find insurers that are in the Medicare Advantage market or that have a significant number of younger enrollees with chronic conditions, such as kidney disease, who may benefit from more careful prescribing practices, she said.
The new study builds on previous research, such as a 2017 study that showed that EQUiPPED reduced PIM prescribing at four VA hospitals. Findings from a more recent rollout at three academic health systems suggested that the model might also be effective in targeting the overuse of specific drugs in facilities in which PIM prescribing is already low.
A researcher in those earlier studies, Susan Nicole Hastings, MD, a geriatric medicine specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the Durham VA Health Care System, told this news organization that Lifespan’s experience supports the idea that “with the right attention to balancing fidelity and tailoring for the new setting, there is tremendous potential for moving successful programs from the VA to other health systems.”
Ann E. Vandenberg, PhD, MPH, a gerontologist at Emory University, Atlanta, said the fragmented nature of the American health care system makes it difficult to disseminate EQUiPPED widely, but interoperability applications that pull data from different electronic health records could help hospital systems to adopt the program without undergoing site-specific customization.
Dr. Hastings and Dr. Vandenberg have received research funding to study EQUiPPED from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Hastings also received research funding from the VA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AGS 2022
The baby formula shortage continues
Meghan Block of Weymouth, Mass., starts her search at 5 a.m. every morning – combing local retailer websites for baby formula.
Her own children have been off it for years. But her cousin in New Hampshire has a 2-month-old son who needs hypoallergenic formula, and the nationwide shortage has left the new mom scrambling to find what her baby needs.
“I’d equate this to how we were all frantically looking for vaccine appointments when they first rolled out,” Ms. Block said. “Parents are all mobilizing for each other.”
She added, “What people aren’t talking about is the stress on new mothers this is causing. If you’re on the edge of the baby blues and postpartum depression, and you can’t find food for your babies – these parents could be in crisis.”
For weeks, a pandemic-induced supply chain shortage – along with a massive recall from top formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition – has left shelves empty and parents panicked, fearing their dwindling formula supplies will disappear entirely.
Abbott announced that its previously shuttered Michigan factory would reopen, but it remains unclear how soon that will make a noticeable difference.
The Food and Drug Administration announced Monday, May 16, that it would ease restrictions for selling foreign-made baby formula in the U.S. to broaden supply.
President Joe Biden invoked the the Defense Production Act on May 18, which requires suppliers to send resources to formula plants before giving them to other customers. The president is also authorizing the Defense Department to use commercial aircraft to pick up infant formula overseas that meets federal standards and fly it to the U.S. – a measure dubbed “Operation Fly Formula.”
But in the meantime, hospital staff and pediatricians are fielding questions from parents that they can’t always answer.
“People want to know if the shortage is ending soon, and that’s hard to predict. Even with the factory back online, the end could still be 1-3 months away,” Joshua Wechsler, MD, pediatric gastroenterologist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said in an interview.
Most formulas on the market have comparable alternatives, Dr. Wechsler said, but there are fewer options for parents of special-needs babies – those with allergies and specific dietary requirements.
This has required around-the-clock work from dietitians and pediatricians to find sufficient options for these babies and monitor their ability to tolerate new kinds of formula.
“We’re advising parents not to dilute formula, not to buy it from sources you’re unfamiliar with, and no homemade formulas,” Dr. Wechsler said.
He said in some instances he has seen weight loss among babies whose supplies were stretching thin, and in very rare cases, hospitalizations.
According to recent reports, two children were hospitalized in mid-May at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., as a result of the formula shortage.
Those most affected by the crisis, doctors say, are lower-income families. Half of the infant formula purchased in the United States is through Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits, a federal assistance program, which provides formula for free but only limited types and brands.
But in most cases, hospitals and pediatricians have the means to provide caregivers with supplementary formula, said Amy Hair, MD, program director of neonatal nutrition at Texas Children’s Hospital.
“Here in the hospital, we’re OK, because we’re able to switch through different options for patients and we’re sending families home with a short supply to bridge them over,” Dr. Hair said. “We encourage patients to talk to their pediatricians, who usually have in-office supplies.”
She also advises parents to look in smaller pharmacies and stores rather than bigger retailers, along with ordering it straight from the formula manufacturers online.
“We’re reassuring families we think this is temporary,” Dr. Hair said. “Providers have been dealing with this for a while, so we have some strategies in place to help caregivers through the shortage.”
In the meantime, parents continue to lean on each other for help and resources. Ms. Block’s cousin in New Hampshire, Jamie Boudreau, said she has friends and family on the lookout across the country for hypoallergenic formula for her son.
She currently has about a 1-month supply, but she worries constantly that will be depleted before the shortage ends.
“It’s definitely been very stressful,” Ms. Boudreau said. “I, as an adult, can go days without eating, but my tiny 2-month-old little boy – he can’t go more than 3 hours. What am I going to do if in 4 weeks I don’t have any more?”
Meghan Block of Weymouth, Mass., starts her search at 5 a.m. every morning – combing local retailer websites for baby formula.
Her own children have been off it for years. But her cousin in New Hampshire has a 2-month-old son who needs hypoallergenic formula, and the nationwide shortage has left the new mom scrambling to find what her baby needs.
“I’d equate this to how we were all frantically looking for vaccine appointments when they first rolled out,” Ms. Block said. “Parents are all mobilizing for each other.”
She added, “What people aren’t talking about is the stress on new mothers this is causing. If you’re on the edge of the baby blues and postpartum depression, and you can’t find food for your babies – these parents could be in crisis.”
For weeks, a pandemic-induced supply chain shortage – along with a massive recall from top formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition – has left shelves empty and parents panicked, fearing their dwindling formula supplies will disappear entirely.
Abbott announced that its previously shuttered Michigan factory would reopen, but it remains unclear how soon that will make a noticeable difference.
The Food and Drug Administration announced Monday, May 16, that it would ease restrictions for selling foreign-made baby formula in the U.S. to broaden supply.
President Joe Biden invoked the the Defense Production Act on May 18, which requires suppliers to send resources to formula plants before giving them to other customers. The president is also authorizing the Defense Department to use commercial aircraft to pick up infant formula overseas that meets federal standards and fly it to the U.S. – a measure dubbed “Operation Fly Formula.”
But in the meantime, hospital staff and pediatricians are fielding questions from parents that they can’t always answer.
“People want to know if the shortage is ending soon, and that’s hard to predict. Even with the factory back online, the end could still be 1-3 months away,” Joshua Wechsler, MD, pediatric gastroenterologist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said in an interview.
Most formulas on the market have comparable alternatives, Dr. Wechsler said, but there are fewer options for parents of special-needs babies – those with allergies and specific dietary requirements.
This has required around-the-clock work from dietitians and pediatricians to find sufficient options for these babies and monitor their ability to tolerate new kinds of formula.
“We’re advising parents not to dilute formula, not to buy it from sources you’re unfamiliar with, and no homemade formulas,” Dr. Wechsler said.
He said in some instances he has seen weight loss among babies whose supplies were stretching thin, and in very rare cases, hospitalizations.
According to recent reports, two children were hospitalized in mid-May at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., as a result of the formula shortage.
Those most affected by the crisis, doctors say, are lower-income families. Half of the infant formula purchased in the United States is through Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits, a federal assistance program, which provides formula for free but only limited types and brands.
But in most cases, hospitals and pediatricians have the means to provide caregivers with supplementary formula, said Amy Hair, MD, program director of neonatal nutrition at Texas Children’s Hospital.
“Here in the hospital, we’re OK, because we’re able to switch through different options for patients and we’re sending families home with a short supply to bridge them over,” Dr. Hair said. “We encourage patients to talk to their pediatricians, who usually have in-office supplies.”
She also advises parents to look in smaller pharmacies and stores rather than bigger retailers, along with ordering it straight from the formula manufacturers online.
“We’re reassuring families we think this is temporary,” Dr. Hair said. “Providers have been dealing with this for a while, so we have some strategies in place to help caregivers through the shortage.”
In the meantime, parents continue to lean on each other for help and resources. Ms. Block’s cousin in New Hampshire, Jamie Boudreau, said she has friends and family on the lookout across the country for hypoallergenic formula for her son.
She currently has about a 1-month supply, but she worries constantly that will be depleted before the shortage ends.
“It’s definitely been very stressful,” Ms. Boudreau said. “I, as an adult, can go days without eating, but my tiny 2-month-old little boy – he can’t go more than 3 hours. What am I going to do if in 4 weeks I don’t have any more?”
Meghan Block of Weymouth, Mass., starts her search at 5 a.m. every morning – combing local retailer websites for baby formula.
Her own children have been off it for years. But her cousin in New Hampshire has a 2-month-old son who needs hypoallergenic formula, and the nationwide shortage has left the new mom scrambling to find what her baby needs.
“I’d equate this to how we were all frantically looking for vaccine appointments when they first rolled out,” Ms. Block said. “Parents are all mobilizing for each other.”
She added, “What people aren’t talking about is the stress on new mothers this is causing. If you’re on the edge of the baby blues and postpartum depression, and you can’t find food for your babies – these parents could be in crisis.”
For weeks, a pandemic-induced supply chain shortage – along with a massive recall from top formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition – has left shelves empty and parents panicked, fearing their dwindling formula supplies will disappear entirely.
Abbott announced that its previously shuttered Michigan factory would reopen, but it remains unclear how soon that will make a noticeable difference.
The Food and Drug Administration announced Monday, May 16, that it would ease restrictions for selling foreign-made baby formula in the U.S. to broaden supply.
President Joe Biden invoked the the Defense Production Act on May 18, which requires suppliers to send resources to formula plants before giving them to other customers. The president is also authorizing the Defense Department to use commercial aircraft to pick up infant formula overseas that meets federal standards and fly it to the U.S. – a measure dubbed “Operation Fly Formula.”
But in the meantime, hospital staff and pediatricians are fielding questions from parents that they can’t always answer.
“People want to know if the shortage is ending soon, and that’s hard to predict. Even with the factory back online, the end could still be 1-3 months away,” Joshua Wechsler, MD, pediatric gastroenterologist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, said in an interview.
Most formulas on the market have comparable alternatives, Dr. Wechsler said, but there are fewer options for parents of special-needs babies – those with allergies and specific dietary requirements.
This has required around-the-clock work from dietitians and pediatricians to find sufficient options for these babies and monitor their ability to tolerate new kinds of formula.
“We’re advising parents not to dilute formula, not to buy it from sources you’re unfamiliar with, and no homemade formulas,” Dr. Wechsler said.
He said in some instances he has seen weight loss among babies whose supplies were stretching thin, and in very rare cases, hospitalizations.
According to recent reports, two children were hospitalized in mid-May at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., as a result of the formula shortage.
Those most affected by the crisis, doctors say, are lower-income families. Half of the infant formula purchased in the United States is through Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits, a federal assistance program, which provides formula for free but only limited types and brands.
But in most cases, hospitals and pediatricians have the means to provide caregivers with supplementary formula, said Amy Hair, MD, program director of neonatal nutrition at Texas Children’s Hospital.
“Here in the hospital, we’re OK, because we’re able to switch through different options for patients and we’re sending families home with a short supply to bridge them over,” Dr. Hair said. “We encourage patients to talk to their pediatricians, who usually have in-office supplies.”
She also advises parents to look in smaller pharmacies and stores rather than bigger retailers, along with ordering it straight from the formula manufacturers online.
“We’re reassuring families we think this is temporary,” Dr. Hair said. “Providers have been dealing with this for a while, so we have some strategies in place to help caregivers through the shortage.”
In the meantime, parents continue to lean on each other for help and resources. Ms. Block’s cousin in New Hampshire, Jamie Boudreau, said she has friends and family on the lookout across the country for hypoallergenic formula for her son.
She currently has about a 1-month supply, but she worries constantly that will be depleted before the shortage ends.
“It’s definitely been very stressful,” Ms. Boudreau said. “I, as an adult, can go days without eating, but my tiny 2-month-old little boy – he can’t go more than 3 hours. What am I going to do if in 4 weeks I don’t have any more?”
Bupivacaine following Mohs surgery reduces opioid use, study finds
An injection of a randomized trial shows.
“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.
Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.
Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.
Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.
To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.
Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.
The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm3.
For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.
The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).
Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.
“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.
Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.
“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”
She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”
Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”
Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”
Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”
Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.
“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.
Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.
“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.
“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”
Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An injection of a randomized trial shows.
“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.
Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.
Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.
Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.
To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.
Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.
The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm3.
For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.
The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).
Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.
“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.
Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.
“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”
She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”
Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”
Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”
Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”
Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.
“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.
Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.
“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.
“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”
Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An injection of a randomized trial shows.
“Single-dose, in-office bupivacaine administration immediately following reconstructions known to be high risk for pain reduces postoperative narcotic use and acute pain during the time period when our patients have the highest levels of pain,” said first author Vanessa B. Voss, MD, of the University of Missouri–Columbia, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
“It was well tolerated, there were no adverse effects, and we recommend the consideration of using this in Mohs micrographic surgery reconstructions that are at the highest risk for pain,” she said.
Recent research has shown that Mohs micrographic surgeons have the highest rates of opioid prescribing of all dermatologists, with about 11% of patients undergoing a Mohs procedure prescribed the drugs for postoperative use, Dr. Voss explained.
Yet, with the ongoing opioid epidemic and even short courses of postoperative opioids placing patients at risk for addiction, the pressure is on to find alternative, nonaddictive strategies for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.
Bupivacaine is commonly used intraoperatively with other types of surgeries to reduce postoperative pain, with a favorable duration of action lasting up to 7 hours, compared with just 2-3 hours with lidocaine. And while its use in Mohs surgery is typically also intraoperative, along with lidocaine, the unique postoperative treatment approach in Mohs surgery has not been well studied, Dr. Voss noted.
To investigate, Dr. Voss and colleagues conducted the prospective, multicenter randomized trial, enrolling 174 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer.
Patients were receiving complex flap reconstructions that have been specifically designated in an American Academy of Dermatology position statement to be high risk for pain following Mohs surgeries, and hence, more likely to involve prescriptions for opioids. These include reconstruction flaps of the scalp, ear, nose or lip, a wedge repair of the ear or lip, or a Mustarde cheek rotation flap.
The mean age of the patients was about 69 years, and about 65% were male. The two groups had no significant differences in demographics, tumor types, or repairs. They were randomized to receive either local injections of bupivacaine 0.5% (with no epinephrine) or placebo with sterile saline injection immediately following the procedure, with the total amount of injection standardized and dependent upon the flap surface area, ranging from 2.5 to 5 cm3.
For postoperative pain, all patients were prescribed acetaminophen 1,000 mg alternating with ibuprofen 400 mg, and tramadol, with instructions to only use tramadol as needed for breakthrough pain.
The reported use of narcotic analgesics by participants was significantly higher among those receiving placebo versus bupivacaine in the first 24 hours following surgery (odds ratio, 2.18; P = .03), as well as in the second 24 hours (OR, 2.18; P = .08) and at 48 hours combined (OR, 2.58; P < .01).
Those in the bupivacaine group also reported lower average pain scores, on a scale of 0-10, during the first 8-hour interval (mean difference, 1.6; P < .001). Importantly, overall, reports of pain medication use and the percentage of patients reporting pain under control were similar between groups, despite lower opioid use in the bupivacaine group.
“The percentage of patients reporting their pain to be under control was similar at all time intervals in both groups, so this means the bupivacaine group had their pain well-controlled despite fewer narcotics, with significant reductions in opioid use,” Dr. Voss noted.
Bupivacaine, though generally regarded as safe, has a reputation for being the most cardiotoxic of the local anesthetic agents; however, there were no such side effects reported in the study. Dr. Voss said the likely explanation is the use of low doses.
“In our study, we had no cardiotoxic effects when using up to 5 cc of 0.5%, which equates to 25 mg per patient,” she explained. This is considered a “very low dose,” since the maximum in the Food and Drug Administration pamphlet for local infiltration is 175 mg per patient every 3 hours, “yet is sufficient for reducing pain/narcotic use.”
She added that “surgeons must be careful to avoid accidental intravascular injection, which could increase risks of systemic toxicity, but this is very rare in the reconstruction settings described.”
Overall, the study suggests a potentially beneficial and unique nonopioid approach that is currently lacking for Mohs procedures associated with a high level of pain. “These findings offer a very effective intervention to reduce postoperative opioid use in this subset of patients,” Dr. Voss told this news organization. “There is not any other intervention that I am aware of to address this, although further study into other long-acting anesthetics may demonstrate similar effects.”
Commenting on the study, Justin J. Leitenberger, MD, session moderator, said that these “data could be impactful for reducing pain as well as the need for opioid medication after dermatologic surgery, both of which would be significant for our patients and public health outcomes.”
Among the challenges in treating pain following Mohs surgeries is that “every patient has a different pain threshold and expectation after surgery,” said Dr. Leitenberger, assistant professor of medicine and dermatology and codirector of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and laser and cosmetic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Patients undergoing larger repairs in tense areas of skin can experience increased pain and require prescription pain medication,” he said. “Bupivacaine, in this study, shows promise to provide longer lasting pain control from the surgical appointment and easier bridging to nonopioid pain control.”
Regarding the potential cardiotoxicities associated with the drug, Dr. Leitenberger agreed that the risks are low, and added that many surgeons have, in fact, switched to full use of bupivacaine, as opposed to combination with lidocaine, apparently without problems. “This is a small dose locally to the area after a procedure and I agree that the risks are minuscule,” he said.
“Of note, during national lidocaine shortages over the past few years, many practices transitioned to exclusive use of bupivacaine for the entire Mohs procedure, and [anecdotally], this transition did not result in toxicities that were reported,” Dr. Leitenberger said.
Commenting further, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and hematology/oncology at George Washington University and director of cutaneous oncology at the GW Cancer Center, both in Washington, also agreed that the benefits appear important. “The benefit from using bupivacaine is encouraging on multiple levels,” he said in an interview.
“Given all that we know about opioids and their negative side effect profile as well as their limited help in cutaneous surgery pain control, the use of long-acting anesthetics is an innovative and reasonable approach to provide pain control in the immediate postoperative window when patients tend to have the most pain,” said Dr. Patel, who is also director of dermatologic surgery at George Washington University.
“After this window, acetaminophen and ibuprofen, which have been shown when used in tandem in an alternating schedule to be superior to opioids, provides an effective pain regimen,” he said. “For larger and more pain-sensitive patients, this appears to be a promising combination.”
Dr. Voss, Dr. Leitenberger, and Dr. Patel have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2022
When burnout is moral injury
Several years have passed since I stood among a cohort of eager medical students wearing regalia that signaled a new beginning. Four years of grueling study culminated in a cacophony of unified voices, each reciting a pledge that I had longed to take since early adolescence. Together we celebrated, triumphant despite innumerable exams and various iterations of the Socratic method – all under the guise of assessing knowledge while in truth seeking to insidiously erode the crowd of prospective physicians. Yet our anxiety and uncertainty melted away as names were called, hands firmly clasped, and tassels transposed. For a moment in time, we stood on the precipice of victory, enthusiastic albeit oblivious of the tremendous obstacles that loomed ahead.
Wistfully I reminisce about the unequivocal joy that abounds within the protective shield of naiveté. Specifically, I think about that time when the edict of medicine and the art of being a physician felt congruent. Yet, reality is fickle and often supersedes expectation. Occasionally my thoughts drift to the early days of residency – a time during which the emotional weight of caring for vulnerable patients while learning to master my chosen specialty felt woefully insurmountable. I recall wading blindly through each rotation attempting to emulate the competent and compassionate care so effortlessly demonstrated by senior physicians as they moved through the health care system with apparent ease. They stepped fluidly, as I watched in awe through rose-tinted glasses.
As months passed into years, my perception cleared. What I initially viewed as graceful patient care belied a complex tapestry of health care workers often pressured into arduous decisions, not necessarily in service of a well-constructed treatment plan. Gradually, formidable barriers emerged, guidelines and restrictions embedded within a confining path that suffocated those who dared to cross it. As a result, a field built on the foundations of autonomy, benevolence, and nonmaleficence was slowly engulfed by a system fraught with contrivances. Amid such stressors, physical and psychological health grows tenuous. Classically, this overwhelming feeling of distress is recognized as burnout. Studies reformulated this malady to that which was first described in Vietnam war veterans, a condition known as “moral injury.”
The impact of burnout
To explain the development – and explore the complexities – of moral injury, we must return to 1975 when the term burnout was initially formulated by Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, a psychologist renowned for his work in substance use disorders, psychoanalysis, and clinical education.1 Dr. Freudenberger’s studies noted incidences of heightened emotional and physical distress in his colleagues working in substance abuse and other clinics. He sought to define these experiences as well as understand his own battle with malaise, apathy, and frustration.1 Ultimately, Dr. Freudenberger described burnout as “Becoming exhausted by making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources in the workplace.”2 Although it characteristically overlaps with depression and anxiety, burnout is conceptualized as a separate entity specifically forged within a context of perfectionism, integrity, and self-sacrifice.2 Such qualities are integral in health care and, as a result, physicians are particularly vulnerable.
Since Dr. Freudenberger published “Burnout: The High Cost of Achievement” in 1980, immense research has assisted in not only identifying critical factors that contribute to its development but also the detrimental effects it has on physiological health.3 These include exhaustion from poor work conditions and extreme commitment to employee responsibilities that in turn precipitate mood destabilization and impaired work performance.3 Furthermore, research has also demonstrated that burnout triggers alterations in neural circuitry via the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, structures critical for emotional regulation.4 To combat the ill effects of burnout while maintaining productivity and maximizing profit, several high-profile corporations instituted changes focusing on self-care, wellness, benefits, and incentives. Although these modifications are effective in decreasing the rate of employee turnover, such strategies are not easily transferable to health care. In fact, the rate of physician burnout has steadily increased over the past two decades as the business of medicine shifts towards longer hours, decreased reimbursement rates, and inexhaustible insurance stipulations.2,5 Consequently, occupational dissatisfaction increases the risk of cynicism, frustration with patients, internalization of failure, and likelihood of early retirement.5 Moreover, burnout may also fracture interpersonal relationships as well as precipitate errors, negative patient outcomes, malpractice, and development of severe mental health conditions associated with high morbidity and mortality.5,8
Although the concept of burnout is critical in understanding the side effects of stereotypical workplace culture, critics of the concept bemoan a suggestion of individual blame.6,8 In essence, they argue that burnout is explained as a side effect of toxic workplace conditions, but covertly represents a lack of resilience, motivation, and ambition to thrive in a physically or emotionally taxing occupational setting.6,8 Thus, the responsibility of acclimation lies upon the impacted individuals rather than the employer. For this reason, many strategies to ameliorate burnout are focused on the individual, including meditation, wellness retreats, creating or adjusting self-care regimens, or in some cases psychotherapy and psychopharmacology.6 Whereas burnout may respond (at least partially) to such interventions, without altering the causal factors, it is unlikely to remit. This is especially the case in health care, where systemic constraints lie beyond the control of an individual physician. Rather than promoting or specifically relying upon personal improvement and recovery, amendments are needed on multiple levels to affect meaningful change.
Moral injury
Similar to burnout, moral injury was not initially conceived within the scope of health care. In the 1990s Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, identified veterans presenting with symptoms mimicking PTSD that failed to respond to standard, well established and efficacious treatments.9-11 With further analysis he determined that veterans who demonstrated minimal improvement reported similar histories of guilt, shame, and disgust following perceived injustices enacted or abetted by immoral leaders.10,11 Ultimately Shay identified three components of moral injury: 1. A betrayal of what is morally right; 2. By someone who holds legitimate priority; 3. In a high stakes situation.10
This definition was further modified in 2007 by Brett Linz, PhD, and colleagues as: “Perpetuating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.”10,11 By expanding this description to include distress experienced by physicians and health care workers, Wendy Dean and Simon Talbot (in 2018 and 2019 respectively) explored how the health care system leads practitioners to deliver what they identify as substandard treatment.6-8 This results in disillusionment and lays the foundation for ethical and moral dilemmas in clinicians.
Themes of moral injury are repeatedly cited in various surveys and studies as a cause for occupational dissatisfaction. As physicians and other health care professionals reel from the aftermath of COVID-19, the effects of reconfiguring medicine into a business-oriented framework are glaringly conspicuous. Vast hospital nursing shortages, high patient census exacerbated by the political misuse and polarization of science, and insufficient availability of psychiatric beds, have culminated in a deluge of psychological strain in emergency medical physicians. Furthermore, pressure from administrators, mandated patient satisfaction measures, tedious electronic medical record systems, and copious licensing and certification requirements, contribute to physician distress as they attempt to navigate a system that challenges the vows which they swore to uphold.8 Because the cost of pursuing a medical degree frequently necessitates acquisition of loans that, without a physician income, may be difficult to repay,9 many doctors feel trapped within a seemingly endless cycle of misgiving that contributes to emotional exhaustion, pessimism, and low morale.
In my next series of The Myth of the Superdoctor columns, we will explore various factors that potentiate risk of moral injury. From medical school and residency training to corporate infrastructure and insurance obstacles, I will seek to discern and deliberate strategies for repair and rehabilitation. It is my hope that together we will illuminate the myriad complexities within the business of medicine, and become advocates and harbingers of change not only for physicians and health care workers but also for the sake of our patients and their families.
Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. King N. When a Psychologist Succumbed to Stress, He Coined The Term Burnout. 2016 Dec 8. NPR: All Things Considered.
2. Maslach C and Leiter MP. World Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;15(2):103-11. doi: 10.1002/wps.20311.
3. InformedHealth.org and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Depression: What is burnout?. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279286/.
4. Michel A. Burnout and the Brain. Observer. 2016 Jan 29. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/burnout-and-the-brain.
5. Patel RS et al. Behav Sci. 2018;8(11):98. doi:10.3390/bs8110098.
6. Dean W and Talbot S. Physicians aren’t ‘burning out.’ They’re suffering from moral injury. Stat. 2018 Jul 26. https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/26/physicians-not-burning-out-they-are-suffering-moral-injury/.
7. Dean W and Talbot S. Moral injury and burnout in medicine: A year of lessons learned. Stat. 2019 Jul 26. https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/26/moral-injury-burnout-medicine-lessons-learned/.
8. Dean W et al. Reframing Clinician Distress: Moral Injury Not Burnout. Fed Pract. 2019 Sep; 36(9):400-2. https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/article/207458/mental-health/reframing-clinician-distress-moral-injury-not-burnout.
9. Bailey M. Beyond Burnout: Docs Decry ‘Moral Injury’ From Financial Pressures of Health Care. KHN. 2020 Feb 4. https://khn.org/news/beyond-burnout-docs-decry-moral-injury-from-financial-pressures-of-health-care/.
10. Litz B et al. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009 Dec;29(8):695-706. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.003.
11. Norman S and Maguen S. Moral Injury. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/cooccurring/moral_injury.asp.
Several years have passed since I stood among a cohort of eager medical students wearing regalia that signaled a new beginning. Four years of grueling study culminated in a cacophony of unified voices, each reciting a pledge that I had longed to take since early adolescence. Together we celebrated, triumphant despite innumerable exams and various iterations of the Socratic method – all under the guise of assessing knowledge while in truth seeking to insidiously erode the crowd of prospective physicians. Yet our anxiety and uncertainty melted away as names were called, hands firmly clasped, and tassels transposed. For a moment in time, we stood on the precipice of victory, enthusiastic albeit oblivious of the tremendous obstacles that loomed ahead.
Wistfully I reminisce about the unequivocal joy that abounds within the protective shield of naiveté. Specifically, I think about that time when the edict of medicine and the art of being a physician felt congruent. Yet, reality is fickle and often supersedes expectation. Occasionally my thoughts drift to the early days of residency – a time during which the emotional weight of caring for vulnerable patients while learning to master my chosen specialty felt woefully insurmountable. I recall wading blindly through each rotation attempting to emulate the competent and compassionate care so effortlessly demonstrated by senior physicians as they moved through the health care system with apparent ease. They stepped fluidly, as I watched in awe through rose-tinted glasses.
As months passed into years, my perception cleared. What I initially viewed as graceful patient care belied a complex tapestry of health care workers often pressured into arduous decisions, not necessarily in service of a well-constructed treatment plan. Gradually, formidable barriers emerged, guidelines and restrictions embedded within a confining path that suffocated those who dared to cross it. As a result, a field built on the foundations of autonomy, benevolence, and nonmaleficence was slowly engulfed by a system fraught with contrivances. Amid such stressors, physical and psychological health grows tenuous. Classically, this overwhelming feeling of distress is recognized as burnout. Studies reformulated this malady to that which was first described in Vietnam war veterans, a condition known as “moral injury.”
The impact of burnout
To explain the development – and explore the complexities – of moral injury, we must return to 1975 when the term burnout was initially formulated by Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, a psychologist renowned for his work in substance use disorders, psychoanalysis, and clinical education.1 Dr. Freudenberger’s studies noted incidences of heightened emotional and physical distress in his colleagues working in substance abuse and other clinics. He sought to define these experiences as well as understand his own battle with malaise, apathy, and frustration.1 Ultimately, Dr. Freudenberger described burnout as “Becoming exhausted by making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources in the workplace.”2 Although it characteristically overlaps with depression and anxiety, burnout is conceptualized as a separate entity specifically forged within a context of perfectionism, integrity, and self-sacrifice.2 Such qualities are integral in health care and, as a result, physicians are particularly vulnerable.
Since Dr. Freudenberger published “Burnout: The High Cost of Achievement” in 1980, immense research has assisted in not only identifying critical factors that contribute to its development but also the detrimental effects it has on physiological health.3 These include exhaustion from poor work conditions and extreme commitment to employee responsibilities that in turn precipitate mood destabilization and impaired work performance.3 Furthermore, research has also demonstrated that burnout triggers alterations in neural circuitry via the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, structures critical for emotional regulation.4 To combat the ill effects of burnout while maintaining productivity and maximizing profit, several high-profile corporations instituted changes focusing on self-care, wellness, benefits, and incentives. Although these modifications are effective in decreasing the rate of employee turnover, such strategies are not easily transferable to health care. In fact, the rate of physician burnout has steadily increased over the past two decades as the business of medicine shifts towards longer hours, decreased reimbursement rates, and inexhaustible insurance stipulations.2,5 Consequently, occupational dissatisfaction increases the risk of cynicism, frustration with patients, internalization of failure, and likelihood of early retirement.5 Moreover, burnout may also fracture interpersonal relationships as well as precipitate errors, negative patient outcomes, malpractice, and development of severe mental health conditions associated with high morbidity and mortality.5,8
Although the concept of burnout is critical in understanding the side effects of stereotypical workplace culture, critics of the concept bemoan a suggestion of individual blame.6,8 In essence, they argue that burnout is explained as a side effect of toxic workplace conditions, but covertly represents a lack of resilience, motivation, and ambition to thrive in a physically or emotionally taxing occupational setting.6,8 Thus, the responsibility of acclimation lies upon the impacted individuals rather than the employer. For this reason, many strategies to ameliorate burnout are focused on the individual, including meditation, wellness retreats, creating or adjusting self-care regimens, or in some cases psychotherapy and psychopharmacology.6 Whereas burnout may respond (at least partially) to such interventions, without altering the causal factors, it is unlikely to remit. This is especially the case in health care, where systemic constraints lie beyond the control of an individual physician. Rather than promoting or specifically relying upon personal improvement and recovery, amendments are needed on multiple levels to affect meaningful change.
Moral injury
Similar to burnout, moral injury was not initially conceived within the scope of health care. In the 1990s Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, identified veterans presenting with symptoms mimicking PTSD that failed to respond to standard, well established and efficacious treatments.9-11 With further analysis he determined that veterans who demonstrated minimal improvement reported similar histories of guilt, shame, and disgust following perceived injustices enacted or abetted by immoral leaders.10,11 Ultimately Shay identified three components of moral injury: 1. A betrayal of what is morally right; 2. By someone who holds legitimate priority; 3. In a high stakes situation.10
This definition was further modified in 2007 by Brett Linz, PhD, and colleagues as: “Perpetuating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.”10,11 By expanding this description to include distress experienced by physicians and health care workers, Wendy Dean and Simon Talbot (in 2018 and 2019 respectively) explored how the health care system leads practitioners to deliver what they identify as substandard treatment.6-8 This results in disillusionment and lays the foundation for ethical and moral dilemmas in clinicians.
Themes of moral injury are repeatedly cited in various surveys and studies as a cause for occupational dissatisfaction. As physicians and other health care professionals reel from the aftermath of COVID-19, the effects of reconfiguring medicine into a business-oriented framework are glaringly conspicuous. Vast hospital nursing shortages, high patient census exacerbated by the political misuse and polarization of science, and insufficient availability of psychiatric beds, have culminated in a deluge of psychological strain in emergency medical physicians. Furthermore, pressure from administrators, mandated patient satisfaction measures, tedious electronic medical record systems, and copious licensing and certification requirements, contribute to physician distress as they attempt to navigate a system that challenges the vows which they swore to uphold.8 Because the cost of pursuing a medical degree frequently necessitates acquisition of loans that, without a physician income, may be difficult to repay,9 many doctors feel trapped within a seemingly endless cycle of misgiving that contributes to emotional exhaustion, pessimism, and low morale.
In my next series of The Myth of the Superdoctor columns, we will explore various factors that potentiate risk of moral injury. From medical school and residency training to corporate infrastructure and insurance obstacles, I will seek to discern and deliberate strategies for repair and rehabilitation. It is my hope that together we will illuminate the myriad complexities within the business of medicine, and become advocates and harbingers of change not only for physicians and health care workers but also for the sake of our patients and their families.
Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. King N. When a Psychologist Succumbed to Stress, He Coined The Term Burnout. 2016 Dec 8. NPR: All Things Considered.
2. Maslach C and Leiter MP. World Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;15(2):103-11. doi: 10.1002/wps.20311.
3. InformedHealth.org and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Depression: What is burnout?. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279286/.
4. Michel A. Burnout and the Brain. Observer. 2016 Jan 29. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/burnout-and-the-brain.
5. Patel RS et al. Behav Sci. 2018;8(11):98. doi:10.3390/bs8110098.
6. Dean W and Talbot S. Physicians aren’t ‘burning out.’ They’re suffering from moral injury. Stat. 2018 Jul 26. https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/26/physicians-not-burning-out-they-are-suffering-moral-injury/.
7. Dean W and Talbot S. Moral injury and burnout in medicine: A year of lessons learned. Stat. 2019 Jul 26. https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/26/moral-injury-burnout-medicine-lessons-learned/.
8. Dean W et al. Reframing Clinician Distress: Moral Injury Not Burnout. Fed Pract. 2019 Sep; 36(9):400-2. https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/article/207458/mental-health/reframing-clinician-distress-moral-injury-not-burnout.
9. Bailey M. Beyond Burnout: Docs Decry ‘Moral Injury’ From Financial Pressures of Health Care. KHN. 2020 Feb 4. https://khn.org/news/beyond-burnout-docs-decry-moral-injury-from-financial-pressures-of-health-care/.
10. Litz B et al. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009 Dec;29(8):695-706. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.003.
11. Norman S and Maguen S. Moral Injury. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/cooccurring/moral_injury.asp.
Several years have passed since I stood among a cohort of eager medical students wearing regalia that signaled a new beginning. Four years of grueling study culminated in a cacophony of unified voices, each reciting a pledge that I had longed to take since early adolescence. Together we celebrated, triumphant despite innumerable exams and various iterations of the Socratic method – all under the guise of assessing knowledge while in truth seeking to insidiously erode the crowd of prospective physicians. Yet our anxiety and uncertainty melted away as names were called, hands firmly clasped, and tassels transposed. For a moment in time, we stood on the precipice of victory, enthusiastic albeit oblivious of the tremendous obstacles that loomed ahead.
Wistfully I reminisce about the unequivocal joy that abounds within the protective shield of naiveté. Specifically, I think about that time when the edict of medicine and the art of being a physician felt congruent. Yet, reality is fickle and often supersedes expectation. Occasionally my thoughts drift to the early days of residency – a time during which the emotional weight of caring for vulnerable patients while learning to master my chosen specialty felt woefully insurmountable. I recall wading blindly through each rotation attempting to emulate the competent and compassionate care so effortlessly demonstrated by senior physicians as they moved through the health care system with apparent ease. They stepped fluidly, as I watched in awe through rose-tinted glasses.
As months passed into years, my perception cleared. What I initially viewed as graceful patient care belied a complex tapestry of health care workers often pressured into arduous decisions, not necessarily in service of a well-constructed treatment plan. Gradually, formidable barriers emerged, guidelines and restrictions embedded within a confining path that suffocated those who dared to cross it. As a result, a field built on the foundations of autonomy, benevolence, and nonmaleficence was slowly engulfed by a system fraught with contrivances. Amid such stressors, physical and psychological health grows tenuous. Classically, this overwhelming feeling of distress is recognized as burnout. Studies reformulated this malady to that which was first described in Vietnam war veterans, a condition known as “moral injury.”
The impact of burnout
To explain the development – and explore the complexities – of moral injury, we must return to 1975 when the term burnout was initially formulated by Herbert Freudenberger, PhD, a psychologist renowned for his work in substance use disorders, psychoanalysis, and clinical education.1 Dr. Freudenberger’s studies noted incidences of heightened emotional and physical distress in his colleagues working in substance abuse and other clinics. He sought to define these experiences as well as understand his own battle with malaise, apathy, and frustration.1 Ultimately, Dr. Freudenberger described burnout as “Becoming exhausted by making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources in the workplace.”2 Although it characteristically overlaps with depression and anxiety, burnout is conceptualized as a separate entity specifically forged within a context of perfectionism, integrity, and self-sacrifice.2 Such qualities are integral in health care and, as a result, physicians are particularly vulnerable.
Since Dr. Freudenberger published “Burnout: The High Cost of Achievement” in 1980, immense research has assisted in not only identifying critical factors that contribute to its development but also the detrimental effects it has on physiological health.3 These include exhaustion from poor work conditions and extreme commitment to employee responsibilities that in turn precipitate mood destabilization and impaired work performance.3 Furthermore, research has also demonstrated that burnout triggers alterations in neural circuitry via the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, structures critical for emotional regulation.4 To combat the ill effects of burnout while maintaining productivity and maximizing profit, several high-profile corporations instituted changes focusing on self-care, wellness, benefits, and incentives. Although these modifications are effective in decreasing the rate of employee turnover, such strategies are not easily transferable to health care. In fact, the rate of physician burnout has steadily increased over the past two decades as the business of medicine shifts towards longer hours, decreased reimbursement rates, and inexhaustible insurance stipulations.2,5 Consequently, occupational dissatisfaction increases the risk of cynicism, frustration with patients, internalization of failure, and likelihood of early retirement.5 Moreover, burnout may also fracture interpersonal relationships as well as precipitate errors, negative patient outcomes, malpractice, and development of severe mental health conditions associated with high morbidity and mortality.5,8
Although the concept of burnout is critical in understanding the side effects of stereotypical workplace culture, critics of the concept bemoan a suggestion of individual blame.6,8 In essence, they argue that burnout is explained as a side effect of toxic workplace conditions, but covertly represents a lack of resilience, motivation, and ambition to thrive in a physically or emotionally taxing occupational setting.6,8 Thus, the responsibility of acclimation lies upon the impacted individuals rather than the employer. For this reason, many strategies to ameliorate burnout are focused on the individual, including meditation, wellness retreats, creating or adjusting self-care regimens, or in some cases psychotherapy and psychopharmacology.6 Whereas burnout may respond (at least partially) to such interventions, without altering the causal factors, it is unlikely to remit. This is especially the case in health care, where systemic constraints lie beyond the control of an individual physician. Rather than promoting or specifically relying upon personal improvement and recovery, amendments are needed on multiple levels to affect meaningful change.
Moral injury
Similar to burnout, moral injury was not initially conceived within the scope of health care. In the 1990s Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, identified veterans presenting with symptoms mimicking PTSD that failed to respond to standard, well established and efficacious treatments.9-11 With further analysis he determined that veterans who demonstrated minimal improvement reported similar histories of guilt, shame, and disgust following perceived injustices enacted or abetted by immoral leaders.10,11 Ultimately Shay identified three components of moral injury: 1. A betrayal of what is morally right; 2. By someone who holds legitimate priority; 3. In a high stakes situation.10
This definition was further modified in 2007 by Brett Linz, PhD, and colleagues as: “Perpetuating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.”10,11 By expanding this description to include distress experienced by physicians and health care workers, Wendy Dean and Simon Talbot (in 2018 and 2019 respectively) explored how the health care system leads practitioners to deliver what they identify as substandard treatment.6-8 This results in disillusionment and lays the foundation for ethical and moral dilemmas in clinicians.
Themes of moral injury are repeatedly cited in various surveys and studies as a cause for occupational dissatisfaction. As physicians and other health care professionals reel from the aftermath of COVID-19, the effects of reconfiguring medicine into a business-oriented framework are glaringly conspicuous. Vast hospital nursing shortages, high patient census exacerbated by the political misuse and polarization of science, and insufficient availability of psychiatric beds, have culminated in a deluge of psychological strain in emergency medical physicians. Furthermore, pressure from administrators, mandated patient satisfaction measures, tedious electronic medical record systems, and copious licensing and certification requirements, contribute to physician distress as they attempt to navigate a system that challenges the vows which they swore to uphold.8 Because the cost of pursuing a medical degree frequently necessitates acquisition of loans that, without a physician income, may be difficult to repay,9 many doctors feel trapped within a seemingly endless cycle of misgiving that contributes to emotional exhaustion, pessimism, and low morale.
In my next series of The Myth of the Superdoctor columns, we will explore various factors that potentiate risk of moral injury. From medical school and residency training to corporate infrastructure and insurance obstacles, I will seek to discern and deliberate strategies for repair and rehabilitation. It is my hope that together we will illuminate the myriad complexities within the business of medicine, and become advocates and harbingers of change not only for physicians and health care workers but also for the sake of our patients and their families.
Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. King N. When a Psychologist Succumbed to Stress, He Coined The Term Burnout. 2016 Dec 8. NPR: All Things Considered.
2. Maslach C and Leiter MP. World Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;15(2):103-11. doi: 10.1002/wps.20311.
3. InformedHealth.org and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Depression: What is burnout?. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279286/.
4. Michel A. Burnout and the Brain. Observer. 2016 Jan 29. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/burnout-and-the-brain.
5. Patel RS et al. Behav Sci. 2018;8(11):98. doi:10.3390/bs8110098.
6. Dean W and Talbot S. Physicians aren’t ‘burning out.’ They’re suffering from moral injury. Stat. 2018 Jul 26. https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/26/physicians-not-burning-out-they-are-suffering-moral-injury/.
7. Dean W and Talbot S. Moral injury and burnout in medicine: A year of lessons learned. Stat. 2019 Jul 26. https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/26/moral-injury-burnout-medicine-lessons-learned/.
8. Dean W et al. Reframing Clinician Distress: Moral Injury Not Burnout. Fed Pract. 2019 Sep; 36(9):400-2. https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/article/207458/mental-health/reframing-clinician-distress-moral-injury-not-burnout.
9. Bailey M. Beyond Burnout: Docs Decry ‘Moral Injury’ From Financial Pressures of Health Care. KHN. 2020 Feb 4. https://khn.org/news/beyond-burnout-docs-decry-moral-injury-from-financial-pressures-of-health-care/.
10. Litz B et al. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009 Dec;29(8):695-706. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.003.
11. Norman S and Maguen S. Moral Injury. PTSD: National Center for PTSD. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/cooccurring/moral_injury.asp.
Health care facilities can prevent 35%-70% of infections. Here’s how
Good hand hygiene and other cost-effective infection prevention and control (IPC) practices can eliminate between 35% and 70% of health care–setting infections in all countries regardless of economic status, the World Health Organization reports.
IPC uses a practical, evidence-based approach to help patients, health care workers, and visitors to health care facilities avoid harmful infections, which can range from infections caused by localized antibiotic-resistant bacteria to pandemic viruses. The WHO calls the report the first global analysis of IPC implementation.
“Hospitals across the world saw increased rates of health care–associated infections (HAIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This included SARS-CoV-2 infections and other HAIs that increased as our health care systems were stretched to the breaking point and fewer resources were available for HAI prevention,” Daniel Diekema, MD, who was not involved in the report, said in an email.
“As we enter the third year of the pandemic, this WHO report should serve as an urgent call to action,” Dr. Diekema, a clinical professor of internal medicine at University of Iowa Health Care and an associate hospital epidemiologist with University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, both in Iowa City, noted. “Investing more resources in IPC programs will not only improve pandemic response, it will reduce morbidity, mortality, and global costs from all HAIs.”
No country or health system is free of HAIs
“Disparities in IPC investments between high- and low-income countries is the greatest challenge outlined in this report,” Dr. Diekema said in an email. “If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that an infection spread anywhere in the world can soon become a problem everywhere. Thus, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that IPC resources are more equitably distributed across the world.”
The report notes that HAIs are among the most common adverse events experienced in health care, and many HAIs are caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. The report includes these details:
It is predicted that of every 100 patients in acute-care hospitals, an average of 7 patients in high-income countries and 15 in low- and middle-income countries will acquire at least one HAI while hospitalized; as many as 30% of patients in intensive care encounter HAIs.
Of all cases of hospital-treated sepsis, 23.6% were linked to health care; 48.7% of all sepsis cases involving organ dysfunction treated in adult intensive care were acquired in the hospital; 24.4% of patients and 52.3% of those in intensive care who were affected by health care–associated sepsis died.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control calculated that 4.5 million episodes of HAIs occurred each year among patients in acute-care hospitals in countries of the European Union and the European Economic Area.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that on any day, 1 in 31 hospital patients and 1 in 43 nursing home residents has an HAI.
Up to 41% of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in health care settings.
Over roughly the first 18 months of the pandemic, COVID-19 killed between 80,000 and 180,000 health care workers worldwide.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for IPC
Despite the pandemic, high-income countries were eight times more likely to implement more advanced IPC than low-income countries, and IPC national programs in low- and middle-income countries improved only slightly.
Only 4 (3.8%) of the 106 evaluated countries met all the minimum requirements for IPC in place at the national level, and only 15.2% of health care facilities met all IPC minimum requirements.
Libby A. Richards, RN, MSN, PhD, CHES, an associate professor of nursing and the director of the PhD program in the Purdue University School of Nursing in West Lafayette, Ind., welcomed the report.
“While the principles of infection prevention and control have been fundamental for well over a hundred years, the COVID-19 pandemic brought these critical issues to everyone’s attention,” Dr. Richards, who was not involved in the report, said by email. “During the pandemic, the impact on our overburdened and understaffed health care system left little or no room for other acutely ill patients.
“This report brings timely attention to the importance of IPC across health care services,” she added.
Suzanne Wagester, RN, MSN, director of infection prevention at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said in an email, “The pandemic has united us as a society as we recognize that infections impact us all. We struggle with the same universal challenges that directly impact the work of infection prevention.
“IPC programs are vital to facilities, patients, and countries,” Ms. Wagester, who also was not involved in the report, added. “The WHO report highlights the call to action that will hopefully ignite the movement to advance IPC programs across the globe to combat preventable infections.”
The WHO Global IPC Portal helps health care professionals in all countries analyze, track progress, and improve IPC at facility and national levels.
The report was funded by core WHO funds. The authors and Dr. Diekema, Dr. Richards, and Ms. Wagester have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Good hand hygiene and other cost-effective infection prevention and control (IPC) practices can eliminate between 35% and 70% of health care–setting infections in all countries regardless of economic status, the World Health Organization reports.
IPC uses a practical, evidence-based approach to help patients, health care workers, and visitors to health care facilities avoid harmful infections, which can range from infections caused by localized antibiotic-resistant bacteria to pandemic viruses. The WHO calls the report the first global analysis of IPC implementation.
“Hospitals across the world saw increased rates of health care–associated infections (HAIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This included SARS-CoV-2 infections and other HAIs that increased as our health care systems were stretched to the breaking point and fewer resources were available for HAI prevention,” Daniel Diekema, MD, who was not involved in the report, said in an email.
“As we enter the third year of the pandemic, this WHO report should serve as an urgent call to action,” Dr. Diekema, a clinical professor of internal medicine at University of Iowa Health Care and an associate hospital epidemiologist with University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, both in Iowa City, noted. “Investing more resources in IPC programs will not only improve pandemic response, it will reduce morbidity, mortality, and global costs from all HAIs.”
No country or health system is free of HAIs
“Disparities in IPC investments between high- and low-income countries is the greatest challenge outlined in this report,” Dr. Diekema said in an email. “If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that an infection spread anywhere in the world can soon become a problem everywhere. Thus, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that IPC resources are more equitably distributed across the world.”
The report notes that HAIs are among the most common adverse events experienced in health care, and many HAIs are caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. The report includes these details:
It is predicted that of every 100 patients in acute-care hospitals, an average of 7 patients in high-income countries and 15 in low- and middle-income countries will acquire at least one HAI while hospitalized; as many as 30% of patients in intensive care encounter HAIs.
Of all cases of hospital-treated sepsis, 23.6% were linked to health care; 48.7% of all sepsis cases involving organ dysfunction treated in adult intensive care were acquired in the hospital; 24.4% of patients and 52.3% of those in intensive care who were affected by health care–associated sepsis died.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control calculated that 4.5 million episodes of HAIs occurred each year among patients in acute-care hospitals in countries of the European Union and the European Economic Area.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that on any day, 1 in 31 hospital patients and 1 in 43 nursing home residents has an HAI.
Up to 41% of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in health care settings.
Over roughly the first 18 months of the pandemic, COVID-19 killed between 80,000 and 180,000 health care workers worldwide.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for IPC
Despite the pandemic, high-income countries were eight times more likely to implement more advanced IPC than low-income countries, and IPC national programs in low- and middle-income countries improved only slightly.
Only 4 (3.8%) of the 106 evaluated countries met all the minimum requirements for IPC in place at the national level, and only 15.2% of health care facilities met all IPC minimum requirements.
Libby A. Richards, RN, MSN, PhD, CHES, an associate professor of nursing and the director of the PhD program in the Purdue University School of Nursing in West Lafayette, Ind., welcomed the report.
“While the principles of infection prevention and control have been fundamental for well over a hundred years, the COVID-19 pandemic brought these critical issues to everyone’s attention,” Dr. Richards, who was not involved in the report, said by email. “During the pandemic, the impact on our overburdened and understaffed health care system left little or no room for other acutely ill patients.
“This report brings timely attention to the importance of IPC across health care services,” she added.
Suzanne Wagester, RN, MSN, director of infection prevention at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said in an email, “The pandemic has united us as a society as we recognize that infections impact us all. We struggle with the same universal challenges that directly impact the work of infection prevention.
“IPC programs are vital to facilities, patients, and countries,” Ms. Wagester, who also was not involved in the report, added. “The WHO report highlights the call to action that will hopefully ignite the movement to advance IPC programs across the globe to combat preventable infections.”
The WHO Global IPC Portal helps health care professionals in all countries analyze, track progress, and improve IPC at facility and national levels.
The report was funded by core WHO funds. The authors and Dr. Diekema, Dr. Richards, and Ms. Wagester have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Good hand hygiene and other cost-effective infection prevention and control (IPC) practices can eliminate between 35% and 70% of health care–setting infections in all countries regardless of economic status, the World Health Organization reports.
IPC uses a practical, evidence-based approach to help patients, health care workers, and visitors to health care facilities avoid harmful infections, which can range from infections caused by localized antibiotic-resistant bacteria to pandemic viruses. The WHO calls the report the first global analysis of IPC implementation.
“Hospitals across the world saw increased rates of health care–associated infections (HAIs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This included SARS-CoV-2 infections and other HAIs that increased as our health care systems were stretched to the breaking point and fewer resources were available for HAI prevention,” Daniel Diekema, MD, who was not involved in the report, said in an email.
“As we enter the third year of the pandemic, this WHO report should serve as an urgent call to action,” Dr. Diekema, a clinical professor of internal medicine at University of Iowa Health Care and an associate hospital epidemiologist with University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, both in Iowa City, noted. “Investing more resources in IPC programs will not only improve pandemic response, it will reduce morbidity, mortality, and global costs from all HAIs.”
No country or health system is free of HAIs
“Disparities in IPC investments between high- and low-income countries is the greatest challenge outlined in this report,” Dr. Diekema said in an email. “If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that an infection spread anywhere in the world can soon become a problem everywhere. Thus, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that IPC resources are more equitably distributed across the world.”
The report notes that HAIs are among the most common adverse events experienced in health care, and many HAIs are caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. The report includes these details:
It is predicted that of every 100 patients in acute-care hospitals, an average of 7 patients in high-income countries and 15 in low- and middle-income countries will acquire at least one HAI while hospitalized; as many as 30% of patients in intensive care encounter HAIs.
Of all cases of hospital-treated sepsis, 23.6% were linked to health care; 48.7% of all sepsis cases involving organ dysfunction treated in adult intensive care were acquired in the hospital; 24.4% of patients and 52.3% of those in intensive care who were affected by health care–associated sepsis died.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control calculated that 4.5 million episodes of HAIs occurred each year among patients in acute-care hospitals in countries of the European Union and the European Economic Area.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that on any day, 1 in 31 hospital patients and 1 in 43 nursing home residents has an HAI.
Up to 41% of hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in health care settings.
Over roughly the first 18 months of the pandemic, COVID-19 killed between 80,000 and 180,000 health care workers worldwide.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for IPC
Despite the pandemic, high-income countries were eight times more likely to implement more advanced IPC than low-income countries, and IPC national programs in low- and middle-income countries improved only slightly.
Only 4 (3.8%) of the 106 evaluated countries met all the minimum requirements for IPC in place at the national level, and only 15.2% of health care facilities met all IPC minimum requirements.
Libby A. Richards, RN, MSN, PhD, CHES, an associate professor of nursing and the director of the PhD program in the Purdue University School of Nursing in West Lafayette, Ind., welcomed the report.
“While the principles of infection prevention and control have been fundamental for well over a hundred years, the COVID-19 pandemic brought these critical issues to everyone’s attention,” Dr. Richards, who was not involved in the report, said by email. “During the pandemic, the impact on our overburdened and understaffed health care system left little or no room for other acutely ill patients.
“This report brings timely attention to the importance of IPC across health care services,” she added.
Suzanne Wagester, RN, MSN, director of infection prevention at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said in an email, “The pandemic has united us as a society as we recognize that infections impact us all. We struggle with the same universal challenges that directly impact the work of infection prevention.
“IPC programs are vital to facilities, patients, and countries,” Ms. Wagester, who also was not involved in the report, added. “The WHO report highlights the call to action that will hopefully ignite the movement to advance IPC programs across the globe to combat preventable infections.”
The WHO Global IPC Portal helps health care professionals in all countries analyze, track progress, and improve IPC at facility and national levels.
The report was funded by core WHO funds. The authors and Dr. Diekema, Dr. Richards, and Ms. Wagester have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.