Issues with the MOC

In Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Revamp the MOC” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. September 2020, p. 7-10), he addresses the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, which—in my opinion—is nothing more than a folly and a greedy money grab designed to extort revenue from practicing psychiatrists. Like Dr. Nasrallah, my initial board certification consisted of a written exam, followed by a face-to-face oral exam. Most candidates, myself included, did not relish the thought of being subjected to the scrutiny of an oral exam. It was truly an anxiety-provoking and nerve-wracking ordeal, but in the end, the exam revealed itself to be an amazingly effective and legitimate measuring stick.

I was not so fortunate to have been grandfathered with lifetime certification, so I have been forced to recertify twice now. I will be 70 years old when I will need to decide whether to recertify once again. It is my belief that the MOC process is cumbersome and nonsensical, having little, if any, relevance in assessing one’s competency. Again, the ABPN’s purpose is not to “protect the public” and ensure safe and competent care, but to generate tremendous revenue for the Board. How can any rational individual believe that this exam is a legitimate test of one’s knowledge and competency when the pass rates are so stratospherically high year after year? I do not know of a single individual who has failed the recertification exam, so it would appear that if you pay the fees and sit for the exam, you will pass. It saddens me that the Board can perpetrate such a hoax on the public, leading them to believe that the MOC actually means something.

The cost to recertify is not inexpensive. Apparently, in a desire to add to its coffers, the ABPN has recently implemented the Physician Folios portal, whereby psychiatrists are forced to pay an annual fee. Its purpose, according to the Board, is to provide“a dynamic conduit for important data exchange such as making updates to personal contact information, updating medical license information, and applying and paying for an examination.”¹ Give me a break!

It is my hope that a better, less expensive, more appropriate system is developed, allowing the psychiatrist to focus his/her efforts on treating patients.

Terrence Boyadjis, MD
Private psychiatric practice
West Chester, Pennsylvania

Reference
1. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. ABPN Physician Folios. https://application.abpn.com/webclient/landing_page.asp. Accessed October 20, 2020.

Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about the MOC process is another addition to his collection of many of the best editorials I’ve ever read. I related fondly to his experiences taking the oral exam, which I took in 1972. I also became an examiner during the mid-1970s. Dr. Nasrallah continues to be a source of down-to-earth wisdom for our beloved profession.

Richard W. Worst, MD
Twin Falls, Idaho

Continue to: Overcoming a ‘quadruple threat’

Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Enduring the ordeal of a quadruple threat is especially arduous for psychiatric patients” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. August 2020, p. 14,16,37) was very well written and most timely. Perhaps in seeking to help those who suffer from the “quadruple threat,” we may find solace for our own suffering. We are healers, and Dr. Nasrallah set our targets with grace and fervor.

Robert W. Pollack, MD
Founder/COO
Psychiatric Associates of Southwest Florida 
Fort Myers, Florida

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Issues with the MOC

In Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Revamp the MOC” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. September 2020, p. 7-10), he addresses the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, which—in my opinion—is nothing more than a folly and a greedy money grab designed to extort revenue from practicing psychiatrists. Like Dr. Nasrallah, my initial board certification consisted of a written exam, followed by a face-to-face oral exam. Most candidates, myself included, did not relish the thought of being subjected to the scrutiny of an oral exam. It was truly an anxiety-provoking and nerve-wracking ordeal, but in the end, the exam revealed itself to be an amazingly effective and legitimate measuring stick.

I was not so fortunate to have been grandfathered with lifetime certification, so I have been forced to recertify twice now. I will be 70 years old when I will need to decide whether to recertify once again. It is my belief that the MOC process is cumbersome and nonsensical, having little, if any, relevance in assessing one’s competency. Again, the ABPN’s purpose is not to “protect the public” and ensure safe and competent care, but to generate tremendous revenue for the Board. How can any rational individual believe that this exam is a legitimate test of one’s knowledge and competency when the pass rates are so stratospherically high year after year? I do not know of a single individual who has failed the recertification exam, so it would appear that if you pay the fees and sit for the exam, you will pass. It saddens me that the Board can perpetrate such a hoax on the public, leading them to believe that the MOC actually means something.

The cost to recertify is not inexpensive. Apparently, in a desire to add to its coffers, the ABPN has recently implemented the Physician Folios portal, whereby psychiatrists are forced to pay an annual fee. Its purpose, according to the Board, is to provide“a dynamic conduit for important data exchange such as making updates to personal contact information, updating medical license information, and applying and paying for an examination.”¹ Give me a break!

It is my hope that a better, less expensive, more appropriate system is developed, allowing the psychiatrist to focus his/her efforts on treating patients.

Terrence Boyadjis, MD
Private psychiatric practice
West Chester, Pennsylvania

Reference
1. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. ABPN Physician Folios. https://application.abpn.com/webclient/landing_page.asp. Accessed October 20, 2020.

Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about the MOC process is another addition to his collection of many of the best editorials I’ve ever read. I related fondly to his experiences taking the oral exam, which I took in 1972. I also became an examiner during the mid-1970s. Dr. Nasrallah continues to be a source of down-to-earth wisdom for our beloved profession.

Richard W. Worst, MD
Twin Falls, Idaho

Continue to: Overcoming a ‘quadruple threat’

Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Enduring the ordeal of a quadruple threat is especially arduous for psychiatric patients” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. August 2020, p. 14,16,37) was very well written and most timely. Perhaps in seeking to help those who suffer from the “quadruple threat,” we may find solace for our own suffering. We are healers, and Dr. Nasrallah set our targets with grace and fervor.

Robert W. Pollack, MD
Founder/COO
Psychiatric Associates of Southwest Florida 
Fort Myers, Florida

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Issues with the MOC

In Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Revamp the MOC” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. September 2020, p. 7-10), he addresses the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, which—in my opinion—is nothing more than a folly and a greedy money grab designed to extort revenue from practicing psychiatrists. Like Dr. Nasrallah, my initial board certification consisted of a written exam, followed by a face-to-face oral exam. Most candidates, myself included, did not relish the thought of being subjected to the scrutiny of an oral exam. It was truly an anxiety-provoking and nerve-wracking ordeal, but in the end, the exam revealed itself to be an amazingly effective and legitimate measuring stick.

I was not so fortunate to have been grandfathered with lifetime certification, so I have been forced to recertify twice now. I will be 70 years old when I will need to decide whether to recertify once again. It is my belief that the MOC process is cumbersome and nonsensical, having little, if any, relevance in assessing one’s competency. Again, the ABPN’s purpose is not to “protect the public” and ensure safe and competent care, but to generate tremendous revenue for the Board. How can any rational individual believe that this exam is a legitimate test of one’s knowledge and competency when the pass rates are so stratospherically high year after year? I do not know of a single individual who has failed the recertification exam, so it would appear that if you pay the fees and sit for the exam, you will pass. It saddens me that the Board can perpetrate such a hoax on the public, leading them to believe that the MOC actually means something.

The cost to recertify is not inexpensive. Apparently, in a desire to add to its coffers, the ABPN has recently implemented the Physician Folios portal, whereby psychiatrists are forced to pay an annual fee. Its purpose, according to the Board, is to provide“a dynamic conduit for important data exchange such as making updates to personal contact information, updating medical license information, and applying and paying for an examination.”¹ Give me a break!

It is my hope that a better, less expensive, more appropriate system is developed, allowing the psychiatrist to focus his/her efforts on treating patients.

Terrence Boyadjis, MD
Private psychiatric practice
West Chester, Pennsylvania

Reference
1. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. ABPN Physician Folios. https://application.abpn.com/webclient/landing_page.asp. Accessed October 20, 2020.

Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about the MOC process is another addition to his collection of many of the best editorials I’ve ever read. I related fondly to his experiences taking the oral exam, which I took in 1972. I also became an examiner during the mid-1970s. Dr. Nasrallah continues to be a source of down-to-earth wisdom for our beloved profession.

Richard W. Worst, MD
Twin Falls, Idaho

Continue to: Overcoming a ‘quadruple threat’

Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial “Enduring the ordeal of a quadruple threat is especially arduous for psychiatric patients” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry. August 2020, p. 14,16,37) was very well written and most timely. Perhaps in seeking to help those who suffer from the “quadruple threat,” we may find solace for our own suffering. We are healers, and Dr. Nasrallah set our targets with grace and fervor.

Robert W. Pollack, MD
Founder/COO
Psychiatric Associates of Southwest Florida 
Fort Myers, Florida

Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Let’s face it: The greatest unmet need in psychiatry is discovering a treatment for the infamous syndrome of toxic political extremism. Its ugly symptoms include blind hatred, visceral malice, bigotry, vandalism, hypocrisy, racism, hubris, intransigence, narcissism, demagoguery, mutual contempt, and intense schadenfreude.

This corrosive affliction has engulfed and polluted our society, and compromised our well-being and quality of life. Treating this malignant syndrome is beyond the reach of psychopharmacology!

Thus, we psychiatrists should focus on the mood, psychotic, anxiety, and addiction syndromes that we encounter daily in our hospitals, clinics, and private offices. They affect tens of millions of patients. We currently have many psychotropic medications for these conditions. When combined with psychotherapy, the resulting synergy can be magical and immensely gratifying. However, some of those agents have limited efficacy due to the extensive heterogeneity of syndromes such as schizophrenia or depression, which are often confounded with comorbidities. A perfect balance between efficacy, tolerability, and safety are often hard to come by in pharmacotherapy.

The most glaring psychopharmacologic unmet need is that 80% of DSM disorders still do not have a single FDA-approved (evidence-based) medication.¹ It will take decades, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the motivation of the often-maligned pharmaceutical industry (indispensable, because they are the only entity with the large R&D infrastructure to develop medications for psychiatry). Both academic and clinical psychiatrists must advise pharmaceutical companies about the unmet needs in our field and urge them to develop novel pharmacotherapies to address the gaps in the clinical care of psychiatric patients.

An inventory of unmet needs

With that in mind, here is a list of unmet needs I have been thinking about lately, and hoping that they will be resolved to help our patients achieve better clinical and functional outcomes.

Rapid-onset antipsychotics. The discovery that ketamine can rapidly convert refractory patients who are chronically depressed or suicidal to normal mood within a few hours shattered the dogma that weeks and months are needed for severe depression to improve, let alone achieve full remission. There is a similar dogma about psychosis requiring a protracted duration of antipsychotic treatment to attain significant impact. A rapid-acting antipsychotic agent would represent a major advance in psychiatry and its pharmaco-economic benefits would be substantial, given the high cost of inpatient hospitalization. Just as neurobiologic research guided the discovery of ketamine as a dramatic paradigm shift in treating depression, targeted research, especially focusing on glutamate pathways, may help identify a rapid-onset agent, whether oral, intranasal, IV, or even (why not) intrathecal. Research is known to enhance serendipity, which has been kind to psychiatry and has led to the discovery of several pharmacologic therapies in psychiatry, such as chlorpromazine, monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants, and lithium.

Long-acting antidepressants and anxiolytics. This can be regarded as low-hanging fruit. Several technologies have been developed for long-acting formulations, yet they have been exploited mainly for antipsychotic medications. Some of these technologies can be employed to convert commonly used antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) into long-acting antidepressants that can also reduce anxiety. Nonadherence among patients with depression is quite common, and relapses may lead to suicide attempts. The use of injectable, long-acting antidepressants can also reduce the incidence of overdoses because the patient will not have possession of potentially fatal pills.

Continue to: Long-acting mood stabilizers

Long-acting mood stabilizers. The rationale for long-acting mood stabilizers is the same as for long-acting antidepressants. Patients with bipolar disorder are known to stop taking their medications because they miss their “highs.” Some long-acting antipsychotics are approved for bipolar disorder, but these are often associated with adverse effects, such as metabolic dysregulation, extrapyramidal symptoms, and tardive dyskinesia. Mood stabilizers are essential for the bipolar spectrum.

A “real” treatment for alcohol use disorders that eliminates craving for alcohol. Alcoholism is associated with more than 100 medical complications and is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. It is frustrating that very few drug companies have focused on this widely prevalent brain disorder, which is also a common comorbid condition in many psychiatric syndromes.

Treatment-resistance pharmacotherapy solutions. All psychiatric syndromes are heterogeneous and contain ≥1 subgroups (biotypes) that fail to respond to what is considered the “standard” psychopharmacologic treatment (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anti-obsessive medications). Technically, those so-called treatment-resistant subtypes need medications with a different mechanism of action. For example, clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression provide proof that treatment resistance is treatable but by a mechanism of action that is completely different from that of standard therapies, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor modulation. And there is a need for more than one pharmacotherapy for treatment resistance because some patients do not respond to either clozapine or ketamine.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia cause significant functional disability and are well known to be a major unmet need. Some promising data are emerging on agents such as pimavanserin, cariprazine, and roluperidone, which is encouraging, but nothing is approved yet.

Cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, both neurocognition and social cognition, are another major unmet need that impair function in many patients. Many attempts to develop a pharmacologic treatment for these serious cognitive impairments have been made, but several candidates that initially appeared promising have bitten the dust. A focus on modulating the glutamate NMDA receptor may eventually lead to a breakthrough, and that may also help patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, both of whom also have cognitive deficits in several domains, albeit less severe than those experienced by patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: Personality disorders

Personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorder, are very challenging to treat pharmacologically despite their prevalence and serious disruption to people’s lives. Hardly any FDA clinical trials have been conducted on any personality disorder. It is an unmet need that all psychiatrists would love to see addressed. But the mythical notion that personality disorders are untreatable may be an impediment in the pursuit of novel pharmacotherapy for borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, or schizotypal personality disorders, and other disorders. Heart attacks and religious conversion often change the baseline personality dramatically.

Childhood disorders. Apart from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), very few childhood psychiatric disorders have an FDA-approved medication. Why do drug companies avoid conducting controlled clinical trials in children age <10 who have autism, spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and other disorders? Effective pharmacotherapy for these children can be regarded as a desirable early intervention that may short-circuit their progression to serious adult psychopathology.

Parsimonious psychopharmacology for the treatment of trans-diagnostic psychiatric disorders. Recent research strongly suggests there is a strong overlap among psychiatric conditions, genetically, clinically, and biologically.^2,3 For example, bipolar disorder is frequently accompanied by anxiety or substance use, patients with schizophrenia often experience anxiety, depression, or substance use, and ADHD has been found to share genes with autism.^4,5

Eating disorders. There are no truly efficacious pharmacologic treatments for anorexia or bulimia nervosa. Research in this area is thin, and needs to be beefed up.

Sexual disorders. A huge unmet need exists for the pharmacotherapy of many sexual disorders that can have serious legal consequences (paraphilias) or quality-of-life repercussions (low sexual desire and orgasm disorders).

Continue to: A coordinated effort

A coordinated effort

It will take a massive collaboration among multiple stakeholders to launch the herculean process of addressing the unmet needs of all the above psychiatric disorders. This includes:

• the pharmaceutical industry (to provide the massive financial investment and R&D expertise)
• the federal government (to provide incentives)
• the FDA (to allow novel clinical trial designs)
• academic psychiatrists (to conduct research to discover the pathophysiology of psychiatric diseases)
• clinical psychiatrists (to provide consultations and advise about the clinical gaps in current psychopharmacological treatments)
• psychiatric patients (who are needed to volunteer for large-scale clinical trials).

This will be a veritable “psychiatric Manhattan Project” to advance the treatment of numerous psychiatric illnesses. The greatest benefit of discovering cures for disabling mental disorders is the evaporation of the virulent stigma that continues to plague our patients.

As for the political extremism that has corroded our society, it may be beyond pharmacologic redemption. An antidote to the “kool aid” has not yet been invented…

Let’s face it: The greatest unmet need in psychiatry is discovering a treatment for the infamous syndrome of toxic political extremism. Its ugly symptoms include blind hatred, visceral malice, bigotry, vandalism, hypocrisy, racism, hubris, intransigence, narcissism, demagoguery, mutual contempt, and intense schadenfreude.

This corrosive affliction has engulfed and polluted our society, and compromised our well-being and quality of life. Treating this malignant syndrome is beyond the reach of psychopharmacology!

Thus, we psychiatrists should focus on the mood, psychotic, anxiety, and addiction syndromes that we encounter daily in our hospitals, clinics, and private offices. They affect tens of millions of patients. We currently have many psychotropic medications for these conditions. When combined with psychotherapy, the resulting synergy can be magical and immensely gratifying. However, some of those agents have limited efficacy due to the extensive heterogeneity of syndromes such as schizophrenia or depression, which are often confounded with comorbidities. A perfect balance between efficacy, tolerability, and safety are often hard to come by in pharmacotherapy.

The most glaring psychopharmacologic unmet need is that 80% of DSM disorders still do not have a single FDA-approved (evidence-based) medication.¹ It will take decades, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the motivation of the often-maligned pharmaceutical industry (indispensable, because they are the only entity with the large R&D infrastructure to develop medications for psychiatry). Both academic and clinical psychiatrists must advise pharmaceutical companies about the unmet needs in our field and urge them to develop novel pharmacotherapies to address the gaps in the clinical care of psychiatric patients.

An inventory of unmet needs

With that in mind, here is a list of unmet needs I have been thinking about lately, and hoping that they will be resolved to help our patients achieve better clinical and functional outcomes.

Rapid-onset antipsychotics. The discovery that ketamine can rapidly convert refractory patients who are chronically depressed or suicidal to normal mood within a few hours shattered the dogma that weeks and months are needed for severe depression to improve, let alone achieve full remission. There is a similar dogma about psychosis requiring a protracted duration of antipsychotic treatment to attain significant impact. A rapid-acting antipsychotic agent would represent a major advance in psychiatry and its pharmaco-economic benefits would be substantial, given the high cost of inpatient hospitalization. Just as neurobiologic research guided the discovery of ketamine as a dramatic paradigm shift in treating depression, targeted research, especially focusing on glutamate pathways, may help identify a rapid-onset agent, whether oral, intranasal, IV, or even (why not) intrathecal. Research is known to enhance serendipity, which has been kind to psychiatry and has led to the discovery of several pharmacologic therapies in psychiatry, such as chlorpromazine, monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants, and lithium.

Long-acting antidepressants and anxiolytics. This can be regarded as low-hanging fruit. Several technologies have been developed for long-acting formulations, yet they have been exploited mainly for antipsychotic medications. Some of these technologies can be employed to convert commonly used antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) into long-acting antidepressants that can also reduce anxiety. Nonadherence among patients with depression is quite common, and relapses may lead to suicide attempts. The use of injectable, long-acting antidepressants can also reduce the incidence of overdoses because the patient will not have possession of potentially fatal pills.

Continue to: Long-acting mood stabilizers

Long-acting mood stabilizers. The rationale for long-acting mood stabilizers is the same as for long-acting antidepressants. Patients with bipolar disorder are known to stop taking their medications because they miss their “highs.” Some long-acting antipsychotics are approved for bipolar disorder, but these are often associated with adverse effects, such as metabolic dysregulation, extrapyramidal symptoms, and tardive dyskinesia. Mood stabilizers are essential for the bipolar spectrum.

A “real” treatment for alcohol use disorders that eliminates craving for alcohol. Alcoholism is associated with more than 100 medical complications and is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. It is frustrating that very few drug companies have focused on this widely prevalent brain disorder, which is also a common comorbid condition in many psychiatric syndromes.

Treatment-resistance pharmacotherapy solutions. All psychiatric syndromes are heterogeneous and contain ≥1 subgroups (biotypes) that fail to respond to what is considered the “standard” psychopharmacologic treatment (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anti-obsessive medications). Technically, those so-called treatment-resistant subtypes need medications with a different mechanism of action. For example, clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression provide proof that treatment resistance is treatable but by a mechanism of action that is completely different from that of standard therapies, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor modulation. And there is a need for more than one pharmacotherapy for treatment resistance because some patients do not respond to either clozapine or ketamine.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia cause significant functional disability and are well known to be a major unmet need. Some promising data are emerging on agents such as pimavanserin, cariprazine, and roluperidone, which is encouraging, but nothing is approved yet.

Cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, both neurocognition and social cognition, are another major unmet need that impair function in many patients. Many attempts to develop a pharmacologic treatment for these serious cognitive impairments have been made, but several candidates that initially appeared promising have bitten the dust. A focus on modulating the glutamate NMDA receptor may eventually lead to a breakthrough, and that may also help patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, both of whom also have cognitive deficits in several domains, albeit less severe than those experienced by patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: Personality disorders

Personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorder, are very challenging to treat pharmacologically despite their prevalence and serious disruption to people’s lives. Hardly any FDA clinical trials have been conducted on any personality disorder. It is an unmet need that all psychiatrists would love to see addressed. But the mythical notion that personality disorders are untreatable may be an impediment in the pursuit of novel pharmacotherapy for borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, or schizotypal personality disorders, and other disorders. Heart attacks and religious conversion often change the baseline personality dramatically.

Childhood disorders. Apart from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), very few childhood psychiatric disorders have an FDA-approved medication. Why do drug companies avoid conducting controlled clinical trials in children age <10 who have autism, spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and other disorders? Effective pharmacotherapy for these children can be regarded as a desirable early intervention that may short-circuit their progression to serious adult psychopathology.

Parsimonious psychopharmacology for the treatment of trans-diagnostic psychiatric disorders. Recent research strongly suggests there is a strong overlap among psychiatric conditions, genetically, clinically, and biologically.^2,3 For example, bipolar disorder is frequently accompanied by anxiety or substance use, patients with schizophrenia often experience anxiety, depression, or substance use, and ADHD has been found to share genes with autism.^4,5

Eating disorders. There are no truly efficacious pharmacologic treatments for anorexia or bulimia nervosa. Research in this area is thin, and needs to be beefed up.

Sexual disorders. A huge unmet need exists for the pharmacotherapy of many sexual disorders that can have serious legal consequences (paraphilias) or quality-of-life repercussions (low sexual desire and orgasm disorders).

Continue to: A coordinated effort

A coordinated effort

It will take a massive collaboration among multiple stakeholders to launch the herculean process of addressing the unmet needs of all the above psychiatric disorders. This includes:

• the pharmaceutical industry (to provide the massive financial investment and R&D expertise)
• the federal government (to provide incentives)
• the FDA (to allow novel clinical trial designs)
• academic psychiatrists (to conduct research to discover the pathophysiology of psychiatric diseases)
• clinical psychiatrists (to provide consultations and advise about the clinical gaps in current psychopharmacological treatments)
• psychiatric patients (who are needed to volunteer for large-scale clinical trials).

This will be a veritable “psychiatric Manhattan Project” to advance the treatment of numerous psychiatric illnesses. The greatest benefit of discovering cures for disabling mental disorders is the evaporation of the virulent stigma that continues to plague our patients.

As for the political extremism that has corroded our society, it may be beyond pharmacologic redemption. An antidote to the “kool aid” has not yet been invented…

Let’s face it: The greatest unmet need in psychiatry is discovering a treatment for the infamous syndrome of toxic political extremism. Its ugly symptoms include blind hatred, visceral malice, bigotry, vandalism, hypocrisy, racism, hubris, intransigence, narcissism, demagoguery, mutual contempt, and intense schadenfreude.

This corrosive affliction has engulfed and polluted our society, and compromised our well-being and quality of life. Treating this malignant syndrome is beyond the reach of psychopharmacology!

Thus, we psychiatrists should focus on the mood, psychotic, anxiety, and addiction syndromes that we encounter daily in our hospitals, clinics, and private offices. They affect tens of millions of patients. We currently have many psychotropic medications for these conditions. When combined with psychotherapy, the resulting synergy can be magical and immensely gratifying. However, some of those agents have limited efficacy due to the extensive heterogeneity of syndromes such as schizophrenia or depression, which are often confounded with comorbidities. A perfect balance between efficacy, tolerability, and safety are often hard to come by in pharmacotherapy.

The most glaring psychopharmacologic unmet need is that 80% of DSM disorders still do not have a single FDA-approved (evidence-based) medication.¹ It will take decades, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the motivation of the often-maligned pharmaceutical industry (indispensable, because they are the only entity with the large R&D infrastructure to develop medications for psychiatry). Both academic and clinical psychiatrists must advise pharmaceutical companies about the unmet needs in our field and urge them to develop novel pharmacotherapies to address the gaps in the clinical care of psychiatric patients.

An inventory of unmet needs

With that in mind, here is a list of unmet needs I have been thinking about lately, and hoping that they will be resolved to help our patients achieve better clinical and functional outcomes.

Rapid-onset antipsychotics. The discovery that ketamine can rapidly convert refractory patients who are chronically depressed or suicidal to normal mood within a few hours shattered the dogma that weeks and months are needed for severe depression to improve, let alone achieve full remission. There is a similar dogma about psychosis requiring a protracted duration of antipsychotic treatment to attain significant impact. A rapid-acting antipsychotic agent would represent a major advance in psychiatry and its pharmaco-economic benefits would be substantial, given the high cost of inpatient hospitalization. Just as neurobiologic research guided the discovery of ketamine as a dramatic paradigm shift in treating depression, targeted research, especially focusing on glutamate pathways, may help identify a rapid-onset agent, whether oral, intranasal, IV, or even (why not) intrathecal. Research is known to enhance serendipity, which has been kind to psychiatry and has led to the discovery of several pharmacologic therapies in psychiatry, such as chlorpromazine, monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants, and lithium.

Long-acting antidepressants and anxiolytics. This can be regarded as low-hanging fruit. Several technologies have been developed for long-acting formulations, yet they have been exploited mainly for antipsychotic medications. Some of these technologies can be employed to convert commonly used antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) into long-acting antidepressants that can also reduce anxiety. Nonadherence among patients with depression is quite common, and relapses may lead to suicide attempts. The use of injectable, long-acting antidepressants can also reduce the incidence of overdoses because the patient will not have possession of potentially fatal pills.

Continue to: Long-acting mood stabilizers

Long-acting mood stabilizers. The rationale for long-acting mood stabilizers is the same as for long-acting antidepressants. Patients with bipolar disorder are known to stop taking their medications because they miss their “highs.” Some long-acting antipsychotics are approved for bipolar disorder, but these are often associated with adverse effects, such as metabolic dysregulation, extrapyramidal symptoms, and tardive dyskinesia. Mood stabilizers are essential for the bipolar spectrum.

A “real” treatment for alcohol use disorders that eliminates craving for alcohol. Alcoholism is associated with more than 100 medical complications and is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. It is frustrating that very few drug companies have focused on this widely prevalent brain disorder, which is also a common comorbid condition in many psychiatric syndromes.

Treatment-resistance pharmacotherapy solutions. All psychiatric syndromes are heterogeneous and contain ≥1 subgroups (biotypes) that fail to respond to what is considered the “standard” psychopharmacologic treatment (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anti-obsessive medications). Technically, those so-called treatment-resistant subtypes need medications with a different mechanism of action. For example, clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression provide proof that treatment resistance is treatable but by a mechanism of action that is completely different from that of standard therapies, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor modulation. And there is a need for more than one pharmacotherapy for treatment resistance because some patients do not respond to either clozapine or ketamine.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia cause significant functional disability and are well known to be a major unmet need. Some promising data are emerging on agents such as pimavanserin, cariprazine, and roluperidone, which is encouraging, but nothing is approved yet.

Cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, both neurocognition and social cognition, are another major unmet need that impair function in many patients. Many attempts to develop a pharmacologic treatment for these serious cognitive impairments have been made, but several candidates that initially appeared promising have bitten the dust. A focus on modulating the glutamate NMDA receptor may eventually lead to a breakthrough, and that may also help patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, both of whom also have cognitive deficits in several domains, albeit less severe than those experienced by patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: Personality disorders

Personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorder, are very challenging to treat pharmacologically despite their prevalence and serious disruption to people’s lives. Hardly any FDA clinical trials have been conducted on any personality disorder. It is an unmet need that all psychiatrists would love to see addressed. But the mythical notion that personality disorders are untreatable may be an impediment in the pursuit of novel pharmacotherapy for borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, or schizotypal personality disorders, and other disorders. Heart attacks and religious conversion often change the baseline personality dramatically.

Childhood disorders. Apart from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), very few childhood psychiatric disorders have an FDA-approved medication. Why do drug companies avoid conducting controlled clinical trials in children age <10 who have autism, spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and other disorders? Effective pharmacotherapy for these children can be regarded as a desirable early intervention that may short-circuit their progression to serious adult psychopathology.

Parsimonious psychopharmacology for the treatment of trans-diagnostic psychiatric disorders. Recent research strongly suggests there is a strong overlap among psychiatric conditions, genetically, clinically, and biologically.^2,3 For example, bipolar disorder is frequently accompanied by anxiety or substance use, patients with schizophrenia often experience anxiety, depression, or substance use, and ADHD has been found to share genes with autism.^4,5

Eating disorders. There are no truly efficacious pharmacologic treatments for anorexia or bulimia nervosa. Research in this area is thin, and needs to be beefed up.

Sexual disorders. A huge unmet need exists for the pharmacotherapy of many sexual disorders that can have serious legal consequences (paraphilias) or quality-of-life repercussions (low sexual desire and orgasm disorders).

Continue to: A coordinated effort

A coordinated effort

It will take a massive collaboration among multiple stakeholders to launch the herculean process of addressing the unmet needs of all the above psychiatric disorders. This includes:

• the pharmaceutical industry (to provide the massive financial investment and R&D expertise)
• the federal government (to provide incentives)
• the FDA (to allow novel clinical trial designs)
• academic psychiatrists (to conduct research to discover the pathophysiology of psychiatric diseases)
• clinical psychiatrists (to provide consultations and advise about the clinical gaps in current psychopharmacological treatments)
• psychiatric patients (who are needed to volunteer for large-scale clinical trials).

This will be a veritable “psychiatric Manhattan Project” to advance the treatment of numerous psychiatric illnesses. The greatest benefit of discovering cures for disabling mental disorders is the evaporation of the virulent stigma that continues to plague our patients.

As for the political extremism that has corroded our society, it may be beyond pharmacologic redemption. An antidote to the “kool aid” has not yet been invented…

Emil: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wasn’t really on my mind until the first weekend in March, specifically Sunday, March 8, 2020. That weekend had us traveling from Chicago to Berwyn, Pennsylvania to attend the funeral of one of my older cousins. Though we were the only ones from his side at the graveside, his funeral had drawn numerous relatives, none of whom were “socially distanced.”

On our way home, I received an e-mail from a colleague in Brazil who had invited me to speak at a conference in São Paulo. He told me that several of my American colleagues had contacted him and informed him that their universities had banned travel because of COVID. “I’m coming,” I replied. “I don’t think COVID’s going to be a big deal here.” He said COVID wasn’t a “big deal” in Brazil, either. Famous last words.

The next weekend, I left early on Saturday morning to start my call duty at the hospital. After finishing rounds at one hospital and going to the next, I got a text from my wife, Anne, asking “What’s wrong with your people over there? What kind of doctors would take a 65-year-old colleague with a history of asthma, and history of an ICU stay with 10 days on a respirator with acute respiratory distress syndrome 10 years ago, and have him exposed to this lethal virus? Are they trying to kill you?”

It stopped me in my tracks. She was right. A lot had changed in a week. In that single week, it had become clear that COVID was a real threat, and I was vulnerable. I finished my call duty but made it clear to the “powers that be” I was going to stay home and isolate for the next few weeks, until we knew more. I was ahead of the curve, but not by much: within days, Chicago shut down with a “stay-at-home” order.

Anne: When the threat of COVID first became known, I said to family and friends, “If Emil gets this, it’s going to be very, very bad.” After that, we made certain to wear masks and gloves when we went out, which wasn’t often.

Emil: We stayed in for the next 3 months until we moved to Columbus, Ohio for my new position as Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUMC).

The day after arriving, I went to the emergency dental clinic because of a severe toothache. While they couldn’t save my tooth, I got something in return: COVID. The clinic took more than appropriate precautions, but I was in a very large room, not a private office, with many patients having their teeth drilled and whatever it is dentists do (actually, I do know; my father was a dentist).

Continue to: All was fine until 2 days later...

All was fine until 2 days later, when I began to feel a bit “unwell” on late Friday afternoon. I went out to do some chores the next morning, but soon returned home exhausted. The rest of the weekend was more of the same, and I was surprised at how I just couldn’t get anything done. On Monday, I felt a chill and thought I might have COVID.

The next morning, I went to OSUMC for a COVID test, but by then I already knew the result. The night before, Anne started complaining of a dry cough that would not stop.

Anne: When I realized Emil had COVID, I wrote to a friend, “If he gets bad and has to go to the hospital, or worse … he goes on a ventilator, I may need to be admitted to a psych ward!” I was still upset from the memory of sitting by Emil’s bedside when he was sick, and on a ventilator, 10 years ago, with his doctors talking with me about when, not if, he died.

Emil: My test came back within 8 hours on Tuesday. It was positive, as was the one for Anne the next day. The doctor I spoke to that evening thought I was only having a mild case and that I should just stay isolated. We immediately got a thermometer and a pulse oximeter to follow our symptoms. Anne’s oxygen saturation levels were always above 95%, but mine were lower, and by Friday, 3 days later and 1 week after my first symptoms, they were down to 92% or less. At that point, we both went to the ER at OSUMC.

Anne: We went to different places in the ER to be evaluated. As Emil was being wheeled away in the ER for his evaluation, I ran over for a kiss—with our masks on.

Continue to: As my ER evaluation...

As my ER evaluation was concluding, my doctor said, “I want someone, preferably the same person, to check in on you every day.” I replied I had a friend who is a critical care nurse. He smiled and said, “Excellent.” My friend called every day, and when she didn’t like how I sounded, on some days, she found an excuse to call again.

Emil: I barely recall my ER evaluation, except that I was to be admitted for observation and supplemental oxygen. I accepted this with aplomb, knowing I was in good hands and hoping I’d be home soon.

Anne: Because we were in the same ER, I thought I’d be able to see Emil once they decided to admit him. No. They wouldn’t even let me go to him to get his wallet for safekeeping. Instead, it was brought to me in a hazmat bag. Thus began our forced separation for the next 5 weeks.

Emil: I had to wait hours for a bed and was wheeled up late in the evening to a double room with one other patient, also with COVID, I supposed. While I had an oxygen mask on, we were only separated by a curtain. I had no idea I wouldn’t see Anne for weeks.

Anne: I returned “home” to a house I had spent less than 5 days in. We had barely moved in and it only had a bed, a couch, a TV, and a kitchen chair. I didn’t even know my neighbors to wave at, and … I was in quarantine. No one could come to me. Our eldest daughter was alone near Burlington, Vermont (where she had escaped to from New York City when it was the national epicenter for COVID back in March). Our youngest daughter was alone in Los Angeles, and our son, a newly minted First Lieutenant in the Army, was stationed in Afghanistan. “Good for him,” I thought. He could safely interact with his army buddies. It was so ironic; the one in the war zone was the only one of us who was safe from COVID.

Continue to: I reached out to family and friends...

I reached out to family and friends and asked for prayers. Emil was prayed for by all of our Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist friends. As I told him later, he was prayed for from Afghanistan to Alaska. My extended family activated a text chain so all I had to do was reply and everyone on the chain would have the same information. I also received many notes and cards of support from friends and Emil’s family. Many told me how strong I was and how I would be fine. Later, I realized how many of these were from widows who were telling me I would survive bereavement, should that be the outcome.

Emil: The next day, the doctors started me on a 5-day course of the newly “approved” antiviral remdesivir, and the day after that, I received 2 units of convalescent plasma on “compassionate use” from the Mayo Clinic. It didn’t matter. I kept getting worse.

Anne: I received twice-daily updates from the nurses. When the updates were late in coming, I crawled the walls, waiting at least 2 hours before reaching out. One day, the nurse who answered said she couldn’t talk because his nurse was dealing with an emergency with him. I didn’t take a deep breath until his nurse called back to say he was stable. Regardless, he just kept getting sicker and sicker, and I began to fear he would not make it.

Emil: By Day 5, my X-ray showed clear evidence of a bilateral pneumonia (it had appeared “normal” on admission) and I was transferred to a “step-up unit.” The next day, I was transferred to the ICU and placed on a ventilator, in the prone position, for 16 hours a day.

Anne: The day Emil was transferred to the ICU, he told me he was worried about his fate. He called and asked me to stay on the phone with him while waiting to go to the ICU. We were both so weak we couldn’t do more than say “I love you” and listen to the other’s labored breathing. That was our last phone call until he was off the ventilator 10 days later.

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: At this point I had no idea what was going on. I was on a ventilator and I was “out.”

Anne: In the meantime, my family made sure I knew they were thinking of us. Every day I woke up with a text from one cousin asking how the night was while my sister checked in every afternoon. They sent flowers and baskets of goodies. Knowing how difficult it was waiting for updates, they sent me a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand pieces. I was surprised at how important that was for binding my anxiety. A friend sent books from my favorite writers.

Despite all this, I was absolutely beside myself the night Emil was placed on the ventilator. I cleaned and scrubbed the house; not that it needed it, I needed it. In the bedroom I saw a bottle under the bed. I retrieved it but couldn’t get up off the floor. I was weak and had tremendous muscle pain each time I moved. I had my phone, so knew I wouldn’t be stranded, but … I didn’t relish the idea of calling 911 and have them break down the front door in their hazmat suits. After more than 30 minutes, and much effort, I was able to get myself up; soon after, I put a house key outside.

When a friend who was taking care of our 2 dogs in Chicago heard that Emil was on the ventilator, she drove through the night to bring them to me so I would have them for solace. She couldn’t even come in the house. She stayed at a nearby hotel and visited with me from outside with masks on waiting for the updates.

Emil: Being an elder lawyer married to a physician, Anne knows a thing or 2 about medicine (because she’s seen a thing or 2 about medicine). She’s even been known to give her elderly clients Mini-Mental State Exams. In addition to talking with members of her support system, Anne was also talking with friends and relatives who are physicians. One exclaimed, “He’s having a cytokine storm!” and said I needed steroids. Another said, yes, that and serious “anti-inflammatory” drugs. At that moment, data supporting the use of steroids or “anti-inflammatories” in COVID hadn’t yet become public. The data on steroids came out early the next week in the Lancet and the data on “anti-inflammatories” was still in process until a few weeks later.

Continue to: Anne was ahead of the curve...

Anne was ahead of the curve and advocated hard for both treatments. At the same time, my OSUMC physicians were considering other options for me. They were checking on my inflammatory status by following my levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). On Days 2 and 3, my CRP level was 64 mg/L and my IL-6 level was 32 pg/mL (neither should be higher than 1).

While I don’t recall much before being on the ventilator, I do recall my alarm at seeing my CRP/IL-6 levels go up in real time on alerts from “My Chart” (my CRP/IL-6 levels were 149/123 within 4 days of admission, and reached a high of about 250/190 as I entered the ICU). I knew what those numbers meant. It was surreal; like watching myself die off in the distance, emotionally disconnected from the whole scene.

The decision to give steroids was relatively easy, and I was started on dexamethasone, a very inexpensive steroid, on Day 7 (ICU Day 2). The decision of which “antiinflammatory” to give was more difficult, as OSUMC had over 40 treatment protocols for COVID. Anne suggested 2 drugs based on recommendations from our physician friends—tocilizumab and acalabrutinib— both were on the market for other conditions and very expensive. The first is an IL-6 antagonist, while the second shuts down cytokine production in B cells, an effect also observed in lung tissue. While tocilizumab was not included in any of the OSUMC COVID protocols, acalabrutinib was, and I started on that medication on Day 8 (ICU Day 3).

Anne: My experience being the advocate was different than the first time 10 years before. That time, Emil had a community-acquired pneumonia, with which our doctors had much experience. This time, I was more active because no one had much information about how to deal with COVID and, thus, there was no standard of care. In fact, Emil was only the second patient to receive acalabrutinib at OSUMC; later, we found out that that patient did well.

Emil: The “anti-inflammatory” strategy worked. Within 5 days of starting the 2 drugs, my CRP and IL-6 levels were down to 10 and 5, respectively; a reduction of >95%. As these levels dropped, so did my oxygen requirements.

Continue to: Anne's reply

Anne: Emil was finally on the upswing. I woke up the next morning and, surprisingly, found that my first emotion wasn’t one of terror. His ICU doctor, a real booster for Emil, made it her mission to get him off the ventilator before the end of her ICU service week. She succeeded.

Emil: Five days after coming off the ventilator, I went to a rehab unit for reconditioning and to begin the long process of recovering my strength and stamina.

Most people say to me, “How awful for you! How terrible!” I smile and say, “Yeah, well, I missed all the excitement. It was really much worse for Anne.” I told them that, although you don’t recall anything while on the ventilator, you get retrograde amnesia for the several days prior to artificial ventilation. I have texts on my cell phone, written by me in those first few days, I don’t recall writing. Anne says we had conversations all the way up to my admission to the ICU; I recall none of those. Frankly, that’s for the best.

One thing to highlight is that your brain doesn’t stop working while you’re “out.” I had numerous vivid dreams, or whatever they were, while on the ventilator and after. Many were “bizarre and dark,” others were “dark and bizarre.” A few were amusing— in the end. I recall watching a TV news program segment describing how we donated our 2 little dogs to the Queen of England, who then gave them to her youngest son, Edward. I swear, I actually “saw” this TV program and watched the Queen and her son (and his wife) playing with our dogs. I was so convinced, I asked Anne where our dogs were; with her, of course. No, she assured me, we hadn’t given them to Queen Elizabeth II. Another conversation I swore I had with Anne was one in which she was telling me she was starting the vetting process to be a VP candidate for Joe Biden (Anne had been involved in Chicago politics so … not totally “crazy”). Nevertheless, I was quickly disabused of this one by my eldest daughter, also a lawyer.

Anne: This time, like the last time he was on a ventilator, Emil took a few more days to clear all the drugs keeping him sedated. Last time, his medical center sent his colleague, the Chair of Neurology, to check on him because there was a concern that he wasn’t “clearing” fast enough. This time, I was the one reassuring the doctors and nurses to be “patient.” At the same time, I was disabusing him of his far-fetched idea that he was head of all research at OSUMC and head of the ICU. He told me, “I don’t understand it. Don’t these people know they work for me?” “No,” I told him. “You are a patient there, and you need to behave.” Aside from that, Emil was fairly lucid. As one of his nurses said, “He’s oriented, he’s just wrong!”

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: Some people have asked me if this experience has changed my perspective. It could have, but I went through something worse 10 years ago when I was first brought back from the “mostly dead.” After that, I realized the most important things in life are the people you love and the people who love you; the good stuff is “gravy” and everything else isn’t worth spending much time or energy on. The first thing I said to Anne when we were face-to-face, as I entered the rehab facility (with masks on, of course), was “I can’t do this to you again.”

Anne: One of the most inhumane aspects of COVID is that you can’t be with your loved one while they are sick. Last time I spent 10 to 12 hours a day at the bedside. This time I couldn’t be there at all. It was especially hard because I knew from the last time how much my presence meant to him. If I left, he would get agitated. His heart rate would come down by 10 beats when I sat next to him.

When we had our first post-ventilator conversation on Father’s Day, he was surprised I was so excited to talk to him. Somehow, he thought I had abandoned him. What he didn’t know was that I was thinking about getting a job in Housekeeping at the hospital just so I could go see him!

Emil: In the end, I’m now back to baseline and grateful I’m alive. I still have things I want to do professionally and personally, and am appreciative I’ll have more time for those. However, I am appalled at how a serious public health issue has been turned into a political weapon by “science deniers” and that this is continuing to kill our citizens. That’s not a nightmare from when I was ill. It’s the “day-mare” we are living now.

Emil: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wasn’t really on my mind until the first weekend in March, specifically Sunday, March 8, 2020. That weekend had us traveling from Chicago to Berwyn, Pennsylvania to attend the funeral of one of my older cousins. Though we were the only ones from his side at the graveside, his funeral had drawn numerous relatives, none of whom were “socially distanced.”

On our way home, I received an e-mail from a colleague in Brazil who had invited me to speak at a conference in São Paulo. He told me that several of my American colleagues had contacted him and informed him that their universities had banned travel because of COVID. “I’m coming,” I replied. “I don’t think COVID’s going to be a big deal here.” He said COVID wasn’t a “big deal” in Brazil, either. Famous last words.

The next weekend, I left early on Saturday morning to start my call duty at the hospital. After finishing rounds at one hospital and going to the next, I got a text from my wife, Anne, asking “What’s wrong with your people over there? What kind of doctors would take a 65-year-old colleague with a history of asthma, and history of an ICU stay with 10 days on a respirator with acute respiratory distress syndrome 10 years ago, and have him exposed to this lethal virus? Are they trying to kill you?”

It stopped me in my tracks. She was right. A lot had changed in a week. In that single week, it had become clear that COVID was a real threat, and I was vulnerable. I finished my call duty but made it clear to the “powers that be” I was going to stay home and isolate for the next few weeks, until we knew more. I was ahead of the curve, but not by much: within days, Chicago shut down with a “stay-at-home” order.

Anne: When the threat of COVID first became known, I said to family and friends, “If Emil gets this, it’s going to be very, very bad.” After that, we made certain to wear masks and gloves when we went out, which wasn’t often.

Emil: We stayed in for the next 3 months until we moved to Columbus, Ohio for my new position as Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUMC).

The day after arriving, I went to the emergency dental clinic because of a severe toothache. While they couldn’t save my tooth, I got something in return: COVID. The clinic took more than appropriate precautions, but I was in a very large room, not a private office, with many patients having their teeth drilled and whatever it is dentists do (actually, I do know; my father was a dentist).

Continue to: All was fine until 2 days later...

All was fine until 2 days later, when I began to feel a bit “unwell” on late Friday afternoon. I went out to do some chores the next morning, but soon returned home exhausted. The rest of the weekend was more of the same, and I was surprised at how I just couldn’t get anything done. On Monday, I felt a chill and thought I might have COVID.

The next morning, I went to OSUMC for a COVID test, but by then I already knew the result. The night before, Anne started complaining of a dry cough that would not stop.

Anne: When I realized Emil had COVID, I wrote to a friend, “If he gets bad and has to go to the hospital, or worse … he goes on a ventilator, I may need to be admitted to a psych ward!” I was still upset from the memory of sitting by Emil’s bedside when he was sick, and on a ventilator, 10 years ago, with his doctors talking with me about when, not if, he died.

Emil: My test came back within 8 hours on Tuesday. It was positive, as was the one for Anne the next day. The doctor I spoke to that evening thought I was only having a mild case and that I should just stay isolated. We immediately got a thermometer and a pulse oximeter to follow our symptoms. Anne’s oxygen saturation levels were always above 95%, but mine were lower, and by Friday, 3 days later and 1 week after my first symptoms, they were down to 92% or less. At that point, we both went to the ER at OSUMC.

Anne: We went to different places in the ER to be evaluated. As Emil was being wheeled away in the ER for his evaluation, I ran over for a kiss—with our masks on.

Continue to: As my ER evaluation...

As my ER evaluation was concluding, my doctor said, “I want someone, preferably the same person, to check in on you every day.” I replied I had a friend who is a critical care nurse. He smiled and said, “Excellent.” My friend called every day, and when she didn’t like how I sounded, on some days, she found an excuse to call again.

Emil: I barely recall my ER evaluation, except that I was to be admitted for observation and supplemental oxygen. I accepted this with aplomb, knowing I was in good hands and hoping I’d be home soon.

Anne: Because we were in the same ER, I thought I’d be able to see Emil once they decided to admit him. No. They wouldn’t even let me go to him to get his wallet for safekeeping. Instead, it was brought to me in a hazmat bag. Thus began our forced separation for the next 5 weeks.

Emil: I had to wait hours for a bed and was wheeled up late in the evening to a double room with one other patient, also with COVID, I supposed. While I had an oxygen mask on, we were only separated by a curtain. I had no idea I wouldn’t see Anne for weeks.

Anne: I returned “home” to a house I had spent less than 5 days in. We had barely moved in and it only had a bed, a couch, a TV, and a kitchen chair. I didn’t even know my neighbors to wave at, and … I was in quarantine. No one could come to me. Our eldest daughter was alone near Burlington, Vermont (where she had escaped to from New York City when it was the national epicenter for COVID back in March). Our youngest daughter was alone in Los Angeles, and our son, a newly minted First Lieutenant in the Army, was stationed in Afghanistan. “Good for him,” I thought. He could safely interact with his army buddies. It was so ironic; the one in the war zone was the only one of us who was safe from COVID.

Continue to: I reached out to family and friends...

I reached out to family and friends and asked for prayers. Emil was prayed for by all of our Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist friends. As I told him later, he was prayed for from Afghanistan to Alaska. My extended family activated a text chain so all I had to do was reply and everyone on the chain would have the same information. I also received many notes and cards of support from friends and Emil’s family. Many told me how strong I was and how I would be fine. Later, I realized how many of these were from widows who were telling me I would survive bereavement, should that be the outcome.

Emil: The next day, the doctors started me on a 5-day course of the newly “approved” antiviral remdesivir, and the day after that, I received 2 units of convalescent plasma on “compassionate use” from the Mayo Clinic. It didn’t matter. I kept getting worse.

Anne: I received twice-daily updates from the nurses. When the updates were late in coming, I crawled the walls, waiting at least 2 hours before reaching out. One day, the nurse who answered said she couldn’t talk because his nurse was dealing with an emergency with him. I didn’t take a deep breath until his nurse called back to say he was stable. Regardless, he just kept getting sicker and sicker, and I began to fear he would not make it.

Emil: By Day 5, my X-ray showed clear evidence of a bilateral pneumonia (it had appeared “normal” on admission) and I was transferred to a “step-up unit.” The next day, I was transferred to the ICU and placed on a ventilator, in the prone position, for 16 hours a day.

Anne: The day Emil was transferred to the ICU, he told me he was worried about his fate. He called and asked me to stay on the phone with him while waiting to go to the ICU. We were both so weak we couldn’t do more than say “I love you” and listen to the other’s labored breathing. That was our last phone call until he was off the ventilator 10 days later.

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: At this point I had no idea what was going on. I was on a ventilator and I was “out.”

Anne: In the meantime, my family made sure I knew they were thinking of us. Every day I woke up with a text from one cousin asking how the night was while my sister checked in every afternoon. They sent flowers and baskets of goodies. Knowing how difficult it was waiting for updates, they sent me a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand pieces. I was surprised at how important that was for binding my anxiety. A friend sent books from my favorite writers.

Despite all this, I was absolutely beside myself the night Emil was placed on the ventilator. I cleaned and scrubbed the house; not that it needed it, I needed it. In the bedroom I saw a bottle under the bed. I retrieved it but couldn’t get up off the floor. I was weak and had tremendous muscle pain each time I moved. I had my phone, so knew I wouldn’t be stranded, but … I didn’t relish the idea of calling 911 and have them break down the front door in their hazmat suits. After more than 30 minutes, and much effort, I was able to get myself up; soon after, I put a house key outside.

When a friend who was taking care of our 2 dogs in Chicago heard that Emil was on the ventilator, she drove through the night to bring them to me so I would have them for solace. She couldn’t even come in the house. She stayed at a nearby hotel and visited with me from outside with masks on waiting for the updates.

Emil: Being an elder lawyer married to a physician, Anne knows a thing or 2 about medicine (because she’s seen a thing or 2 about medicine). She’s even been known to give her elderly clients Mini-Mental State Exams. In addition to talking with members of her support system, Anne was also talking with friends and relatives who are physicians. One exclaimed, “He’s having a cytokine storm!” and said I needed steroids. Another said, yes, that and serious “anti-inflammatory” drugs. At that moment, data supporting the use of steroids or “anti-inflammatories” in COVID hadn’t yet become public. The data on steroids came out early the next week in the Lancet and the data on “anti-inflammatories” was still in process until a few weeks later.

Continue to: Anne was ahead of the curve...

Anne was ahead of the curve and advocated hard for both treatments. At the same time, my OSUMC physicians were considering other options for me. They were checking on my inflammatory status by following my levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). On Days 2 and 3, my CRP level was 64 mg/L and my IL-6 level was 32 pg/mL (neither should be higher than 1).

While I don’t recall much before being on the ventilator, I do recall my alarm at seeing my CRP/IL-6 levels go up in real time on alerts from “My Chart” (my CRP/IL-6 levels were 149/123 within 4 days of admission, and reached a high of about 250/190 as I entered the ICU). I knew what those numbers meant. It was surreal; like watching myself die off in the distance, emotionally disconnected from the whole scene.

The decision to give steroids was relatively easy, and I was started on dexamethasone, a very inexpensive steroid, on Day 7 (ICU Day 2). The decision of which “antiinflammatory” to give was more difficult, as OSUMC had over 40 treatment protocols for COVID. Anne suggested 2 drugs based on recommendations from our physician friends—tocilizumab and acalabrutinib— both were on the market for other conditions and very expensive. The first is an IL-6 antagonist, while the second shuts down cytokine production in B cells, an effect also observed in lung tissue. While tocilizumab was not included in any of the OSUMC COVID protocols, acalabrutinib was, and I started on that medication on Day 8 (ICU Day 3).

Anne: My experience being the advocate was different than the first time 10 years before. That time, Emil had a community-acquired pneumonia, with which our doctors had much experience. This time, I was more active because no one had much information about how to deal with COVID and, thus, there was no standard of care. In fact, Emil was only the second patient to receive acalabrutinib at OSUMC; later, we found out that that patient did well.

Emil: The “anti-inflammatory” strategy worked. Within 5 days of starting the 2 drugs, my CRP and IL-6 levels were down to 10 and 5, respectively; a reduction of >95%. As these levels dropped, so did my oxygen requirements.

Continue to: Anne's reply

Anne: Emil was finally on the upswing. I woke up the next morning and, surprisingly, found that my first emotion wasn’t one of terror. His ICU doctor, a real booster for Emil, made it her mission to get him off the ventilator before the end of her ICU service week. She succeeded.

Emil: Five days after coming off the ventilator, I went to a rehab unit for reconditioning and to begin the long process of recovering my strength and stamina.

Most people say to me, “How awful for you! How terrible!” I smile and say, “Yeah, well, I missed all the excitement. It was really much worse for Anne.” I told them that, although you don’t recall anything while on the ventilator, you get retrograde amnesia for the several days prior to artificial ventilation. I have texts on my cell phone, written by me in those first few days, I don’t recall writing. Anne says we had conversations all the way up to my admission to the ICU; I recall none of those. Frankly, that’s for the best.

One thing to highlight is that your brain doesn’t stop working while you’re “out.” I had numerous vivid dreams, or whatever they were, while on the ventilator and after. Many were “bizarre and dark,” others were “dark and bizarre.” A few were amusing— in the end. I recall watching a TV news program segment describing how we donated our 2 little dogs to the Queen of England, who then gave them to her youngest son, Edward. I swear, I actually “saw” this TV program and watched the Queen and her son (and his wife) playing with our dogs. I was so convinced, I asked Anne where our dogs were; with her, of course. No, she assured me, we hadn’t given them to Queen Elizabeth II. Another conversation I swore I had with Anne was one in which she was telling me she was starting the vetting process to be a VP candidate for Joe Biden (Anne had been involved in Chicago politics so … not totally “crazy”). Nevertheless, I was quickly disabused of this one by my eldest daughter, also a lawyer.

Anne: This time, like the last time he was on a ventilator, Emil took a few more days to clear all the drugs keeping him sedated. Last time, his medical center sent his colleague, the Chair of Neurology, to check on him because there was a concern that he wasn’t “clearing” fast enough. This time, I was the one reassuring the doctors and nurses to be “patient.” At the same time, I was disabusing him of his far-fetched idea that he was head of all research at OSUMC and head of the ICU. He told me, “I don’t understand it. Don’t these people know they work for me?” “No,” I told him. “You are a patient there, and you need to behave.” Aside from that, Emil was fairly lucid. As one of his nurses said, “He’s oriented, he’s just wrong!”

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: Some people have asked me if this experience has changed my perspective. It could have, but I went through something worse 10 years ago when I was first brought back from the “mostly dead.” After that, I realized the most important things in life are the people you love and the people who love you; the good stuff is “gravy” and everything else isn’t worth spending much time or energy on. The first thing I said to Anne when we were face-to-face, as I entered the rehab facility (with masks on, of course), was “I can’t do this to you again.”

Anne: One of the most inhumane aspects of COVID is that you can’t be with your loved one while they are sick. Last time I spent 10 to 12 hours a day at the bedside. This time I couldn’t be there at all. It was especially hard because I knew from the last time how much my presence meant to him. If I left, he would get agitated. His heart rate would come down by 10 beats when I sat next to him.

When we had our first post-ventilator conversation on Father’s Day, he was surprised I was so excited to talk to him. Somehow, he thought I had abandoned him. What he didn’t know was that I was thinking about getting a job in Housekeeping at the hospital just so I could go see him!

Emil: In the end, I’m now back to baseline and grateful I’m alive. I still have things I want to do professionally and personally, and am appreciative I’ll have more time for those. However, I am appalled at how a serious public health issue has been turned into a political weapon by “science deniers” and that this is continuing to kill our citizens. That’s not a nightmare from when I was ill. It’s the “day-mare” we are living now.

Emil: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wasn’t really on my mind until the first weekend in March, specifically Sunday, March 8, 2020. That weekend had us traveling from Chicago to Berwyn, Pennsylvania to attend the funeral of one of my older cousins. Though we were the only ones from his side at the graveside, his funeral had drawn numerous relatives, none of whom were “socially distanced.”

On our way home, I received an e-mail from a colleague in Brazil who had invited me to speak at a conference in São Paulo. He told me that several of my American colleagues had contacted him and informed him that their universities had banned travel because of COVID. “I’m coming,” I replied. “I don’t think COVID’s going to be a big deal here.” He said COVID wasn’t a “big deal” in Brazil, either. Famous last words.

The next weekend, I left early on Saturday morning to start my call duty at the hospital. After finishing rounds at one hospital and going to the next, I got a text from my wife, Anne, asking “What’s wrong with your people over there? What kind of doctors would take a 65-year-old colleague with a history of asthma, and history of an ICU stay with 10 days on a respirator with acute respiratory distress syndrome 10 years ago, and have him exposed to this lethal virus? Are they trying to kill you?”

It stopped me in my tracks. She was right. A lot had changed in a week. In that single week, it had become clear that COVID was a real threat, and I was vulnerable. I finished my call duty but made it clear to the “powers that be” I was going to stay home and isolate for the next few weeks, until we knew more. I was ahead of the curve, but not by much: within days, Chicago shut down with a “stay-at-home” order.

Anne: When the threat of COVID first became known, I said to family and friends, “If Emil gets this, it’s going to be very, very bad.” After that, we made certain to wear masks and gloves when we went out, which wasn’t often.

Emil: We stayed in for the next 3 months until we moved to Columbus, Ohio for my new position as Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUMC).

The day after arriving, I went to the emergency dental clinic because of a severe toothache. While they couldn’t save my tooth, I got something in return: COVID. The clinic took more than appropriate precautions, but I was in a very large room, not a private office, with many patients having their teeth drilled and whatever it is dentists do (actually, I do know; my father was a dentist).

Continue to: All was fine until 2 days later...

All was fine until 2 days later, when I began to feel a bit “unwell” on late Friday afternoon. I went out to do some chores the next morning, but soon returned home exhausted. The rest of the weekend was more of the same, and I was surprised at how I just couldn’t get anything done. On Monday, I felt a chill and thought I might have COVID.

The next morning, I went to OSUMC for a COVID test, but by then I already knew the result. The night before, Anne started complaining of a dry cough that would not stop.

Anne: When I realized Emil had COVID, I wrote to a friend, “If he gets bad and has to go to the hospital, or worse … he goes on a ventilator, I may need to be admitted to a psych ward!” I was still upset from the memory of sitting by Emil’s bedside when he was sick, and on a ventilator, 10 years ago, with his doctors talking with me about when, not if, he died.

Emil: My test came back within 8 hours on Tuesday. It was positive, as was the one for Anne the next day. The doctor I spoke to that evening thought I was only having a mild case and that I should just stay isolated. We immediately got a thermometer and a pulse oximeter to follow our symptoms. Anne’s oxygen saturation levels were always above 95%, but mine were lower, and by Friday, 3 days later and 1 week after my first symptoms, they were down to 92% or less. At that point, we both went to the ER at OSUMC.

Anne: We went to different places in the ER to be evaluated. As Emil was being wheeled away in the ER for his evaluation, I ran over for a kiss—with our masks on.

Continue to: As my ER evaluation...

As my ER evaluation was concluding, my doctor said, “I want someone, preferably the same person, to check in on you every day.” I replied I had a friend who is a critical care nurse. He smiled and said, “Excellent.” My friend called every day, and when she didn’t like how I sounded, on some days, she found an excuse to call again.

Emil: I barely recall my ER evaluation, except that I was to be admitted for observation and supplemental oxygen. I accepted this with aplomb, knowing I was in good hands and hoping I’d be home soon.

Anne: Because we were in the same ER, I thought I’d be able to see Emil once they decided to admit him. No. They wouldn’t even let me go to him to get his wallet for safekeeping. Instead, it was brought to me in a hazmat bag. Thus began our forced separation for the next 5 weeks.

Emil: I had to wait hours for a bed and was wheeled up late in the evening to a double room with one other patient, also with COVID, I supposed. While I had an oxygen mask on, we were only separated by a curtain. I had no idea I wouldn’t see Anne for weeks.

Anne: I returned “home” to a house I had spent less than 5 days in. We had barely moved in and it only had a bed, a couch, a TV, and a kitchen chair. I didn’t even know my neighbors to wave at, and … I was in quarantine. No one could come to me. Our eldest daughter was alone near Burlington, Vermont (where she had escaped to from New York City when it was the national epicenter for COVID back in March). Our youngest daughter was alone in Los Angeles, and our son, a newly minted First Lieutenant in the Army, was stationed in Afghanistan. “Good for him,” I thought. He could safely interact with his army buddies. It was so ironic; the one in the war zone was the only one of us who was safe from COVID.

Continue to: I reached out to family and friends...

I reached out to family and friends and asked for prayers. Emil was prayed for by all of our Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist friends. As I told him later, he was prayed for from Afghanistan to Alaska. My extended family activated a text chain so all I had to do was reply and everyone on the chain would have the same information. I also received many notes and cards of support from friends and Emil’s family. Many told me how strong I was and how I would be fine. Later, I realized how many of these were from widows who were telling me I would survive bereavement, should that be the outcome.

Emil: The next day, the doctors started me on a 5-day course of the newly “approved” antiviral remdesivir, and the day after that, I received 2 units of convalescent plasma on “compassionate use” from the Mayo Clinic. It didn’t matter. I kept getting worse.

Anne: I received twice-daily updates from the nurses. When the updates were late in coming, I crawled the walls, waiting at least 2 hours before reaching out. One day, the nurse who answered said she couldn’t talk because his nurse was dealing with an emergency with him. I didn’t take a deep breath until his nurse called back to say he was stable. Regardless, he just kept getting sicker and sicker, and I began to fear he would not make it.

Emil: By Day 5, my X-ray showed clear evidence of a bilateral pneumonia (it had appeared “normal” on admission) and I was transferred to a “step-up unit.” The next day, I was transferred to the ICU and placed on a ventilator, in the prone position, for 16 hours a day.

Anne: The day Emil was transferred to the ICU, he told me he was worried about his fate. He called and asked me to stay on the phone with him while waiting to go to the ICU. We were both so weak we couldn’t do more than say “I love you” and listen to the other’s labored breathing. That was our last phone call until he was off the ventilator 10 days later.

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: At this point I had no idea what was going on. I was on a ventilator and I was “out.”

Anne: In the meantime, my family made sure I knew they were thinking of us. Every day I woke up with a text from one cousin asking how the night was while my sister checked in every afternoon. They sent flowers and baskets of goodies. Knowing how difficult it was waiting for updates, they sent me a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand pieces. I was surprised at how important that was for binding my anxiety. A friend sent books from my favorite writers.

Despite all this, I was absolutely beside myself the night Emil was placed on the ventilator. I cleaned and scrubbed the house; not that it needed it, I needed it. In the bedroom I saw a bottle under the bed. I retrieved it but couldn’t get up off the floor. I was weak and had tremendous muscle pain each time I moved. I had my phone, so knew I wouldn’t be stranded, but … I didn’t relish the idea of calling 911 and have them break down the front door in their hazmat suits. After more than 30 minutes, and much effort, I was able to get myself up; soon after, I put a house key outside.

When a friend who was taking care of our 2 dogs in Chicago heard that Emil was on the ventilator, she drove through the night to bring them to me so I would have them for solace. She couldn’t even come in the house. She stayed at a nearby hotel and visited with me from outside with masks on waiting for the updates.

Emil: Being an elder lawyer married to a physician, Anne knows a thing or 2 about medicine (because she’s seen a thing or 2 about medicine). She’s even been known to give her elderly clients Mini-Mental State Exams. In addition to talking with members of her support system, Anne was also talking with friends and relatives who are physicians. One exclaimed, “He’s having a cytokine storm!” and said I needed steroids. Another said, yes, that and serious “anti-inflammatory” drugs. At that moment, data supporting the use of steroids or “anti-inflammatories” in COVID hadn’t yet become public. The data on steroids came out early the next week in the Lancet and the data on “anti-inflammatories” was still in process until a few weeks later.

Continue to: Anne was ahead of the curve...

Anne was ahead of the curve and advocated hard for both treatments. At the same time, my OSUMC physicians were considering other options for me. They were checking on my inflammatory status by following my levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). On Days 2 and 3, my CRP level was 64 mg/L and my IL-6 level was 32 pg/mL (neither should be higher than 1).

While I don’t recall much before being on the ventilator, I do recall my alarm at seeing my CRP/IL-6 levels go up in real time on alerts from “My Chart” (my CRP/IL-6 levels were 149/123 within 4 days of admission, and reached a high of about 250/190 as I entered the ICU). I knew what those numbers meant. It was surreal; like watching myself die off in the distance, emotionally disconnected from the whole scene.

The decision to give steroids was relatively easy, and I was started on dexamethasone, a very inexpensive steroid, on Day 7 (ICU Day 2). The decision of which “antiinflammatory” to give was more difficult, as OSUMC had over 40 treatment protocols for COVID. Anne suggested 2 drugs based on recommendations from our physician friends—tocilizumab and acalabrutinib— both were on the market for other conditions and very expensive. The first is an IL-6 antagonist, while the second shuts down cytokine production in B cells, an effect also observed in lung tissue. While tocilizumab was not included in any of the OSUMC COVID protocols, acalabrutinib was, and I started on that medication on Day 8 (ICU Day 3).

Anne: My experience being the advocate was different than the first time 10 years before. That time, Emil had a community-acquired pneumonia, with which our doctors had much experience. This time, I was more active because no one had much information about how to deal with COVID and, thus, there was no standard of care. In fact, Emil was only the second patient to receive acalabrutinib at OSUMC; later, we found out that that patient did well.

Emil: The “anti-inflammatory” strategy worked. Within 5 days of starting the 2 drugs, my CRP and IL-6 levels were down to 10 and 5, respectively; a reduction of >95%. As these levels dropped, so did my oxygen requirements.

Continue to: Anne's reply

Anne: Emil was finally on the upswing. I woke up the next morning and, surprisingly, found that my first emotion wasn’t one of terror. His ICU doctor, a real booster for Emil, made it her mission to get him off the ventilator before the end of her ICU service week. She succeeded.

Emil: Five days after coming off the ventilator, I went to a rehab unit for reconditioning and to begin the long process of recovering my strength and stamina.

Most people say to me, “How awful for you! How terrible!” I smile and say, “Yeah, well, I missed all the excitement. It was really much worse for Anne.” I told them that, although you don’t recall anything while on the ventilator, you get retrograde amnesia for the several days prior to artificial ventilation. I have texts on my cell phone, written by me in those first few days, I don’t recall writing. Anne says we had conversations all the way up to my admission to the ICU; I recall none of those. Frankly, that’s for the best.

One thing to highlight is that your brain doesn’t stop working while you’re “out.” I had numerous vivid dreams, or whatever they were, while on the ventilator and after. Many were “bizarre and dark,” others were “dark and bizarre.” A few were amusing— in the end. I recall watching a TV news program segment describing how we donated our 2 little dogs to the Queen of England, who then gave them to her youngest son, Edward. I swear, I actually “saw” this TV program and watched the Queen and her son (and his wife) playing with our dogs. I was so convinced, I asked Anne where our dogs were; with her, of course. No, she assured me, we hadn’t given them to Queen Elizabeth II. Another conversation I swore I had with Anne was one in which she was telling me she was starting the vetting process to be a VP candidate for Joe Biden (Anne had been involved in Chicago politics so … not totally “crazy”). Nevertheless, I was quickly disabused of this one by my eldest daughter, also a lawyer.

Anne: This time, like the last time he was on a ventilator, Emil took a few more days to clear all the drugs keeping him sedated. Last time, his medical center sent his colleague, the Chair of Neurology, to check on him because there was a concern that he wasn’t “clearing” fast enough. This time, I was the one reassuring the doctors and nurses to be “patient.” At the same time, I was disabusing him of his far-fetched idea that he was head of all research at OSUMC and head of the ICU. He told me, “I don’t understand it. Don’t these people know they work for me?” “No,” I told him. “You are a patient there, and you need to behave.” Aside from that, Emil was fairly lucid. As one of his nurses said, “He’s oriented, he’s just wrong!”

Continue to: Emil's reply

Emil: Some people have asked me if this experience has changed my perspective. It could have, but I went through something worse 10 years ago when I was first brought back from the “mostly dead.” After that, I realized the most important things in life are the people you love and the people who love you; the good stuff is “gravy” and everything else isn’t worth spending much time or energy on. The first thing I said to Anne when we were face-to-face, as I entered the rehab facility (with masks on, of course), was “I can’t do this to you again.”

Anne: One of the most inhumane aspects of COVID is that you can’t be with your loved one while they are sick. Last time I spent 10 to 12 hours a day at the bedside. This time I couldn’t be there at all. It was especially hard because I knew from the last time how much my presence meant to him. If I left, he would get agitated. His heart rate would come down by 10 beats when I sat next to him.

When we had our first post-ventilator conversation on Father’s Day, he was surprised I was so excited to talk to him. Somehow, he thought I had abandoned him. What he didn’t know was that I was thinking about getting a job in Housekeeping at the hospital just so I could go see him!

Emil: In the end, I’m now back to baseline and grateful I’m alive. I still have things I want to do professionally and personally, and am appreciative I’ll have more time for those. However, I am appalled at how a serious public health issue has been turned into a political weapon by “science deniers” and that this is continuing to kill our citizens. That’s not a nightmare from when I was ill. It’s the “day-mare” we are living now.

When selecting a psychotropic medication for a patient with a challenging illness, you may want to consider ordering pharmacogenetic testing. By characterizing how a patient’s genetic profile affects their medication metabolism, pharmacogenetic testing can potentially help improve medication adherence, reduce “trial-and-error” prescribing, and target an effective treatment. Here we address 5 important questions about using pharmacogenetic testing.

1. What can pharmacogenetic testing tell you? Pharmacogenetic testing looks for variants in genes that can affect how a patient metabolizes specific medications. While the results will not inform you about a specific medication’s effectiveness, they can describe the patient’s tolerability of that medication based on his/her metabolism. Most psychotropic medications are biotransformed in the liver by cytochrome P450 (CYP) through pathway enzymes such as 2D6, 2C19, and 3A4. For example, fluoxetine and paroxetine exert their inhibition on CYP2D6, while other psychotropic medications, such as lurasidone, are metabolized at CYP3A4 and are contraindicated with potent CYP3A4 inhibitors (eg, grapefruit juice).¹

In addition to CYP450 enzymes, pharmacogenetic testing can assess for the serotonin transporter gene, SLC6A4, and its sequence promoter variant, 5-HTTLPR. This sequence variation influences response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tertiary amine tricyclic antidepressants.² Pharmacogenetic testing also looks for genes related to Stevens-Johnson syndrome, such as HLA-B*1502, which is associated with adverse effects of carbamazepine and lamotrigine.³ Additional testing of methyl­enetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) can inform you of the patient’s metabolism of folic acid, which is useful for creating augmentation strategies with fluoxetine.⁴

2. When should you order pharmacogenetic testing? Not all patients require pharma­cogenetic testing. Anxious patients who have had multiple unsuccessful medication trials may be good candidates for testing. Consider testing for patients with a history of sensitivity to medications, or whose family members have experienced unusual drug responses.²

3. What steps should you take before ordering pharmacogenetic testing? First, obtain your patient’s informed consent, because clinical testing reveals personal genetic information. Make sure your patient understands that such testing is voluntary and that he/she can opt out. Also, explain that the information obtained from pharmacogenetic testing is confidential and will become part of the patient’s medical record.

Second, choose the best test for your patient’s needs. Pharmacogenetic tests can assess for single genes encoded for selected CYP450 enzymes based on pharmacokinetics (metabolism), or for multiple genes based on pharmacodynamic (mechanism of action) factors.⁵ In a recent randomized controlled trial, Bradley et al⁶ found that testing for multiple genes improved response and remission rates in patients with depression and/or anxiety.

Third, confirm that your patient’s insurance covers pharmacogenetic testing, because this testing can be expensive, although some genetic testing companies may offer patients financial assistance.

Continue to: How are samples taken?

4. How are samples taken? Several methods are used for obtaining samples, including saliva, buccal swab, and peripheral blood. Your patient should not smoke, eat, or drink for at least 30 minutes before providing a saliva sample. For a buccal swab, a cotton swab is rubbed in a circular motion along the oral lining inside each of the patient’s cheeks. The most invasive method is peripheral blood obtained via venipuncture. The sample is sent through expedited mail to an accredited genetic processing laboratory for analysis.

5. How do you interpret the results? Pharmacogenetic testing results are provided in a confidential report. A single gene report allows you to choose psychotropic agents based on pharmacokinetics.⁵ Some laboratories assess multiple genes in a single report, and create categories of medications (such as “use as directed” or “use with caution”) based on the pharmacodynamic factors of each agent.^5,6 Certain laboratories offer dosing guidelines for types of medications that you should use with caution.^1,5,6

When interpreting such testing results, it is critical to use your clinical judgment, because pharmacogenetic testing alone does not assess whether a medication will help improve the patient’s symptoms. It is of utmost importance that you have an understanding of pharmacodynamics, knowledge of the patient’s diet and age, and a caring doctor–patient relationship.

When selecting a psychotropic medication for a patient with a challenging illness, you may want to consider ordering pharmacogenetic testing. By characterizing how a patient’s genetic profile affects their medication metabolism, pharmacogenetic testing can potentially help improve medication adherence, reduce “trial-and-error” prescribing, and target an effective treatment. Here we address 5 important questions about using pharmacogenetic testing.

1. What can pharmacogenetic testing tell you? Pharmacogenetic testing looks for variants in genes that can affect how a patient metabolizes specific medications. While the results will not inform you about a specific medication’s effectiveness, they can describe the patient’s tolerability of that medication based on his/her metabolism. Most psychotropic medications are biotransformed in the liver by cytochrome P450 (CYP) through pathway enzymes such as 2D6, 2C19, and 3A4. For example, fluoxetine and paroxetine exert their inhibition on CYP2D6, while other psychotropic medications, such as lurasidone, are metabolized at CYP3A4 and are contraindicated with potent CYP3A4 inhibitors (eg, grapefruit juice).¹

In addition to CYP450 enzymes, pharmacogenetic testing can assess for the serotonin transporter gene, SLC6A4, and its sequence promoter variant, 5-HTTLPR. This sequence variation influences response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tertiary amine tricyclic antidepressants.² Pharmacogenetic testing also looks for genes related to Stevens-Johnson syndrome, such as HLA-B*1502, which is associated with adverse effects of carbamazepine and lamotrigine.³ Additional testing of methyl­enetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) can inform you of the patient’s metabolism of folic acid, which is useful for creating augmentation strategies with fluoxetine.⁴

2. When should you order pharmacogenetic testing? Not all patients require pharma­cogenetic testing. Anxious patients who have had multiple unsuccessful medication trials may be good candidates for testing. Consider testing for patients with a history of sensitivity to medications, or whose family members have experienced unusual drug responses.²

3. What steps should you take before ordering pharmacogenetic testing? First, obtain your patient’s informed consent, because clinical testing reveals personal genetic information. Make sure your patient understands that such testing is voluntary and that he/she can opt out. Also, explain that the information obtained from pharmacogenetic testing is confidential and will become part of the patient’s medical record.

Second, choose the best test for your patient’s needs. Pharmacogenetic tests can assess for single genes encoded for selected CYP450 enzymes based on pharmacokinetics (metabolism), or for multiple genes based on pharmacodynamic (mechanism of action) factors.⁵ In a recent randomized controlled trial, Bradley et al⁶ found that testing for multiple genes improved response and remission rates in patients with depression and/or anxiety.

Third, confirm that your patient’s insurance covers pharmacogenetic testing, because this testing can be expensive, although some genetic testing companies may offer patients financial assistance.

Continue to: How are samples taken?

4. How are samples taken? Several methods are used for obtaining samples, including saliva, buccal swab, and peripheral blood. Your patient should not smoke, eat, or drink for at least 30 minutes before providing a saliva sample. For a buccal swab, a cotton swab is rubbed in a circular motion along the oral lining inside each of the patient’s cheeks. The most invasive method is peripheral blood obtained via venipuncture. The sample is sent through expedited mail to an accredited genetic processing laboratory for analysis.

5. How do you interpret the results? Pharmacogenetic testing results are provided in a confidential report. A single gene report allows you to choose psychotropic agents based on pharmacokinetics.⁵ Some laboratories assess multiple genes in a single report, and create categories of medications (such as “use as directed” or “use with caution”) based on the pharmacodynamic factors of each agent.^5,6 Certain laboratories offer dosing guidelines for types of medications that you should use with caution.^1,5,6

When interpreting such testing results, it is critical to use your clinical judgment, because pharmacogenetic testing alone does not assess whether a medication will help improve the patient’s symptoms. It is of utmost importance that you have an understanding of pharmacodynamics, knowledge of the patient’s diet and age, and a caring doctor–patient relationship.

When selecting a psychotropic medication for a patient with a challenging illness, you may want to consider ordering pharmacogenetic testing. By characterizing how a patient’s genetic profile affects their medication metabolism, pharmacogenetic testing can potentially help improve medication adherence, reduce “trial-and-error” prescribing, and target an effective treatment. Here we address 5 important questions about using pharmacogenetic testing.

1. What can pharmacogenetic testing tell you? Pharmacogenetic testing looks for variants in genes that can affect how a patient metabolizes specific medications. While the results will not inform you about a specific medication’s effectiveness, they can describe the patient’s tolerability of that medication based on his/her metabolism. Most psychotropic medications are biotransformed in the liver by cytochrome P450 (CYP) through pathway enzymes such as 2D6, 2C19, and 3A4. For example, fluoxetine and paroxetine exert their inhibition on CYP2D6, while other psychotropic medications, such as lurasidone, are metabolized at CYP3A4 and are contraindicated with potent CYP3A4 inhibitors (eg, grapefruit juice).¹

In addition to CYP450 enzymes, pharmacogenetic testing can assess for the serotonin transporter gene, SLC6A4, and its sequence promoter variant, 5-HTTLPR. This sequence variation influences response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tertiary amine tricyclic antidepressants.² Pharmacogenetic testing also looks for genes related to Stevens-Johnson syndrome, such as HLA-B*1502, which is associated with adverse effects of carbamazepine and lamotrigine.³ Additional testing of methyl­enetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) can inform you of the patient’s metabolism of folic acid, which is useful for creating augmentation strategies with fluoxetine.⁴

2. When should you order pharmacogenetic testing? Not all patients require pharma­cogenetic testing. Anxious patients who have had multiple unsuccessful medication trials may be good candidates for testing. Consider testing for patients with a history of sensitivity to medications, or whose family members have experienced unusual drug responses.²

3. What steps should you take before ordering pharmacogenetic testing? First, obtain your patient’s informed consent, because clinical testing reveals personal genetic information. Make sure your patient understands that such testing is voluntary and that he/she can opt out. Also, explain that the information obtained from pharmacogenetic testing is confidential and will become part of the patient’s medical record.

Second, choose the best test for your patient’s needs. Pharmacogenetic tests can assess for single genes encoded for selected CYP450 enzymes based on pharmacokinetics (metabolism), or for multiple genes based on pharmacodynamic (mechanism of action) factors.⁵ In a recent randomized controlled trial, Bradley et al⁶ found that testing for multiple genes improved response and remission rates in patients with depression and/or anxiety.

Third, confirm that your patient’s insurance covers pharmacogenetic testing, because this testing can be expensive, although some genetic testing companies may offer patients financial assistance.

Continue to: How are samples taken?

4. How are samples taken? Several methods are used for obtaining samples, including saliva, buccal swab, and peripheral blood. Your patient should not smoke, eat, or drink for at least 30 minutes before providing a saliva sample. For a buccal swab, a cotton swab is rubbed in a circular motion along the oral lining inside each of the patient’s cheeks. The most invasive method is peripheral blood obtained via venipuncture. The sample is sent through expedited mail to an accredited genetic processing laboratory for analysis.

5. How do you interpret the results? Pharmacogenetic testing results are provided in a confidential report. A single gene report allows you to choose psychotropic agents based on pharmacokinetics.⁵ Some laboratories assess multiple genes in a single report, and create categories of medications (such as “use as directed” or “use with caution”) based on the pharmacodynamic factors of each agent.^5,6 Certain laboratories offer dosing guidelines for types of medications that you should use with caution.^1,5,6

When interpreting such testing results, it is critical to use your clinical judgment, because pharmacogenetic testing alone does not assess whether a medication will help improve the patient’s symptoms. It is of utmost importance that you have an understanding of pharmacodynamics, knowledge of the patient’s diet and age, and a caring doctor–patient relationship.

Lemborexant, FDA-approved for the treatment of insomnia, has demonstrated efficacy in improving both sleep onset and sleep maintenance.¹ This novel compound is now the second approved insomnia medication classed as a dual orexin receptor antagonist (Table 1). This targeted mechanism of action aims to enhance sleep while limiting the adverse effects associated with traditional hypnotics.

Clinical implications

Insomnia symptoms affect approximately one-third of the general population at least occasionally. Approximately 10% of individuals meet DSM-5 criteria for insomnia disorder, which require nighttime sleep difficulty and daytime consequences persisting for a minimum of 3 months.² The prevalence is considerably higher in patients with chronic medical disorders and comorbid psychiatric conditions, especially mood, anxiety, substance use, and stress- and trauma-related disorders. Clinical guidelines for treating insomnia disorder typically recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia as a first choice and FDA-approved insomnia medications as secondary options.³

Currently approved insomnia medi­cations fall into 4 distinct pharmaco­dynamics categories.⁴ Benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics include 5 medications with classic benzodiazepine structures (estazolam, flurazepam, quazepam, temazepam, and triazolam) and 3 compounds (eszopiclone, zaleplon, and zolpidem) with alternate structures but similar mechanisms of action. There is 1 melatonin receptor agonist (ramelteon) and 1 histamine receptor antagonist (low-dose doxepin). Joining suvorexant (approved in 2014), lemborexant is the second dual orexin receptor antagonist.

The orexin (also called hypocretin) system was first described in 1998 and its fundamental role in promoting and coordinating wakefulness was quickly established.⁵ A relatively small number of hypothalamic neurons located in the lateral and perifornical regions produce 2 similar orexin neuropeptides (orexin A and orexin B) with widespread distributions, notably reinforcing the wake-promoting activity of histamine, acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Consistent with the typical sleep-wake cycle, orexin release is limited during the nighttime. The orexin neuropeptides interact with 2 G-protein-coupled orexin receptors (OX1R, OX2R).

Animal studies showed that impairment in orexin system activity was associated with symptoms characteristic of narcolepsy, including cataplexy and excessive sleep episodes. Soon after, it was found that humans diagnosed with narcolepsy with cataplexy had markedly low CSF orexin levels.⁶ This recognition that excessively sleepy people with narcolepsy had a profound decrease in orexin production led to the hypothesis that pharmacologically decreasing orexin activity might be sleep-enhancing for insomnia patients, who presumably are excessively aroused. Numerous compounds soon were evaluated for their potential as orexin receptor antagonists. The efficacy of treating insomnia with a dual orexin receptor antagonist in humans was first reported in 2007 with almorexant, a compound that remains investigational.⁷ Research continues to investigate both single and dual orexin antagonist molecules for insomnia and other potential indications.

How it works

Unlike most hypnotics, which have widespread CNS depressant effects, lemborexant has a more targeted action in promoting sleep by suppressing the wake drive supported by the orexin system.⁸ Lemborexant is highly selective for the OX1R and OX2R orexin receptors, where it functions as a competitive antagonist. It is hypothesized that by modulating orexin activity with a receptor antagonist, excessive arousal associated with insomnia can be reduced, thus improving nighttime sleep. The pharmacokinetic properties allow benefits for both sleep onset and maintenance.

Pharmacokinetics

Lemborexant is available in immediate-release tablets with a peak concentration time (T_max) of approximately 1 to 3 hours after ingestion. When taken after a high-fat and high-calorie meal, there is a delay in the T_max, a decrease in the maximum plasma concentration (C_max), and an increase in the concentration area under the curve (AUC_0-inf).¹

Continue to: Metabolism is primarily through...

Metabolism is primarily through the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 pathway, and to a lesser extent through CYP3A5. Concomitant use with moderate or strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers should be avoided, while use with weak CYP3A inhibitors should be limited to the 5-mg dose of lemborexant.

Lemborexant has the potential to induce the metabolism of CYP2B6 substrates, such as bupropion and methadone, possibly leading to reduced efficacy for these medications. Accordingly, the clinical responses to any CYP2B6 substrates should be monitored and dosage adjustments considered.

Concomitant use of lemborexant with alcohol should be avoided because there may be increased impairment in postural stability and memory, in part due to increases in the medication’s C_max and AUC, as well as the direct effects of alcohol.

Efficacy

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, lemborexant demonstrated both objective and subjective evidence of clinically significant benefits for sleep onset and sleep maintenance in patients diagnosed with insomnia disorder.¹ The 2 pivotal efficacy studies were:

• Sunrise 1, a 4-week trial with older adults that included laboratory polysomnography (PSG) studies (objective) and patient-reported sleep measures (subjective) on selected nights⁹
• Sunrise 2, a 6-month trial assessing patient-reported sleep characteristics in adults and older adults.¹⁰

Sunrise 1 was performed with older adults with insomnia who were randomized to groups with nightly use of lemborexant, 5 mg (n = 266), lemborexant, 10 mg (n = 269), zolpidem extended-release, 6.25 mg, as an active comparator (n = 263), or placebo (n = 208).⁹ The age range was 55 to 88 years with a median age of 63 years. Most patients (86.4%) were women. Because this study focused on the assessment of efficacy for treating sleep maintenance difficulty, the inclusion criteria required a subjective report of experiencing a wake time after sleep onset (sWASO) of at least 60 minutes for 3 or more nights per week over the previous 4 weeks. The zolpidem extended-release 6.25 mg comparison was chosen because it has an indication for sleep maintenance insomnia with this recommended dose for older adults.

Continue to: Laboratory PSG monitoring...

Laboratory PSG monitoring was performed for 2 consecutive nights at baseline (before treatment), the first 2 treatment nights, and the final 2 treatment nights (Nights 29 and 30). The primary study endpoint was the change in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) from baseline to the final 2 nights for the lemborexant doses compared with placebo. Additional PSG-based endpoints were similar comparisons for sleep efficiency (percent time asleep during the 8-hour laboratory recording period) and objective wake after sleep onset (WASO) compared with placebo, and WASO during the second half of the night (WASO2H) compared with zolpidem. Patients completed Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) questionnaires at baseline and the end of the treatment to compare disease severity. Subjective assessments were done daily with electronic diary entries that included sleep onset latency (sSOL), sWASO, and subjective sleep efficiency.

In comparison with placebo, both lemborexant doses were associated with significantly improved PSG measures of LPS, WASO, and sleep efficiency during nights 1 and 2 that were maintained through Nights 29 and 30 (Table 2^1,9). The lemborexant doses also demonstrated significant improvements in WASO2H compared with zolpidem and placebo on the first 2 and final 2 treatment nights. Analyses of the subjective assessments (sSOL, sWASO, and sleep efficiency) compared the baseline with means for the first and the last treatment weeks. At both lemborexant doses, the sSOL was significantly reduced during the first and last weeks compared with placebo and zolpidem. Subjective sleep efficiency was significantly improved at both time points for the lemborexant doses, though these were not significantly different from the zolpidem values. The sWASO values were significantly decreased for both lemborexant doses at both time points compared with placebo. During the first treatment week, both lemborexant doses did not differ significantly from zolpidem in the sWASO change from baseline; however, at the final treatment week, the zolpidem value was significantly improved compared with lemborexant, 5 mg, but not significantly different from lemborexant, 10 mg. The ISI change from baseline to the end of the treatment period showed significant improvement for the lemborexant doses and zolpidem extended-release compared with placebo.

In the Sunrise 2 study, patients who met the criteria for insomnia disorder (age range 18 to 88, mean 55; 68% female) were randomized to groups taking nightly doses of lemborexant, 5 mg (n = 323), lemborexant, 10 mg (n = 323), or placebo (n = 325) for 6 months.¹⁰ Inclusion criteria required an sSOL of at least 30 minutes and/or a sWASO of at least 60 minutes 3 times a week or more during the previous 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with daily electronic diary entries, with analyses of change from baseline for sSOL (primary endpoint, baseline to end of 6-month study period), sWASO, and patient-reported sleep efficiency (sSEF). Subjective total sleep time (sTST) represented the estimated time asleep during the time in bed. Additional diary assessments related to sleep quality and morning alertness. All of these subjective assessments were compared as 7-day means for the first week of treatment and the last week of each treatment month.

The superiority of lemborexant, 5 mg and 10 mg, compared with placebo was demonstrated by significant improvements in sSOL, sSEF, sWASO, and sTST during the initial week of the treatment period that remained significant at the end of the 6-month placebo-controlled period (Table 3^1,10). At the end of 6 months, there were significantly more sleep-onset responders and sleep-maintenance responders among patients taking lemborexant compared with those taking placebo. Sleep-onset responders were patients with a baseline sSOL >30 minutes and a mean sSOL ≤20 minutes at the end of the study. Sleep-maintenance responders were participants with a baseline sWASO >60 minutes who at the end of the study had a mean sWASO ≤60 minutes that included a reduction of at least 10 minutes.

Following the 6-month placebo-controlled treatment period, the Sunrise 2 study continued for an additional 6 months of nightly active treatment for continued safety and efficacy assessment. Patients assigned to lemborexant, 5 mg or 10 mg, during the initial period continued on those doses. Those in the placebo group were randomized to either of the 2 lemborexant doses.

Continue to: Safety studies and adverse reactions

Safety studies and adverse reactions

Potential medication effects on middle-of-the-night and next-morning postural stability (body sway measured with an ataxiameter) and cognitive performance, as well as middle-of-the-night auditory awakening threshold, were assessed in a randomized, 4-way crossover study of 56 healthy older adults (women age ≥55 [77.8%], men age ≥65) given a single bedtime dose of placebo, lemborexant, 5 mg, lemborexant, 10 mg, and zolpidem extended-release, 6.25 mg, on separate nights.¹¹ The results were compared with data from a baseline night with the same measures performed prior to the randomization. The middle-of-the-night assessments were done approximately 4 hours after the dose and the next-morning measures were done after 8 hours in bed. The auditory threshold analysis showed no significant differences among the 4 study nights. Compared with placebo, the middle-of-the-night postural stability was significantly worse for both lemborexant doses and zolpidem; however, the zolpidem effect was significantly worse than with either lemborexant dose. The next-morning postural stability measures showed no significant difference from placebo for the lemborexant doses, but zolpidem continued to show a significantly worsened result. The cognitive performance assessment battery provided 4 domain factor scores (power of attention, continuity of attention, quality of memory, and speed of memory retrieval). The middle-of-the-night battery showed no significant difference between lemborexant, 5 mg, and placebo in any domain, while both lemborexant, 10 mg, and zolpidem showed worse performance on some of the attention and/or memory tests. The next-morning cognitive assessment revealed no significant differences from placebo for the treatments.

Respiratory safety was examined in a placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover study of 38 patients diagnosed with mild obstructive sleep apnea who received lemborexant, 10 mg, or placebo nightly during each 8-day period.¹² Neither the apnea-hypopnea index nor the mean oxygen saturation during the lemborexant nights were significantly different from the placebo nights.

The most common adverse reaction during the month-long Sunrise 1 study and the first 30 days of the Sunrise 2 study was somnolence or fatigue, which occurred in 1% receiving placebo, 7% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 10% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg. Headache was reported by 3.5% receiving placebo, 5.9% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 4.5% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg. Nightmare or abnormal dreams occurred with 0.9% receiving placebo, 0.9% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 2.2% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg.¹

Unique clinical issues

Because investigations of individuals who abused sedatives for recreational purposes showed lemborexant had a likeability rating similar to zolpidem and significantly greater than placebo, the US Drug Enforcement Agency has categorized lemborexant as a Schedule IV controlled substance. Research has not shown evidence of physical dependence or withdrawal signs or symptoms upon discontinuation of lemborexant.¹

Contraindications

Narcolepsy is the only contraindication to the use of lemborexant.¹ Narcolepsy is associated with a decrease in the orexin-producing neurons in the hypothalamus, presumably causing the excessive sleepiness, sleep paralysis, hypnagogic hallucinations, and cataplexy characteristic of the disorder. Hypothetically, an orexin antagonist medication could exacerbate these symptoms.

Continue to: Dosing

Lemborexant should be taken no more than once per night immediately before going to bed and with at least 7 hours remaining before the planned time of awakening.¹ The recommended starting dose is 5 mg. The dosage may be increased to a maximum of 10 mg if the initial dose is well tolerated but insufficiently effective. Patients with moderate hepatic impairment or who are concomitantly taking weak CYP3A inhibitors should receive a maximum of 5 mg once nightly. Lemborexant should be avoided in patients with severe hepatic impairment and in those taking moderate or strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers.

Orexin receptor antagonists do not share cross-tolerance with other hypnotics; this should be taken into consideration when switching to lemborexant. Abruptly stopping a benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotic may lead to rebound insomnia and thus may confound the interpretation of the clinical response when starting lemborexant.

Patients prescribed lemborexant should be educated about possible impairment in alertness and motor coordination, especially with the 10-mg dose, which may affect next-morning driving in sensitive individuals.¹³ Caution is advised with doses >5 mg in patients age ≥65 due to possible somnolence and a higher risk of falls.¹

Bottom Line

Lemborexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist indicated for the treatment of insomnia characterized by difficulties with sleep onset and/or sleep maintenance. It promotes sleep by suppressing the wake drive supported by the orexin system. In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, lemborexant demonstrated objective and subjective evidence of clinically significant benefits for sleep onset and sleep maintenance.

Related Resource

• Sateia MJ, Buysse DJ, Krystal AD, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(2):307-349.

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Doxepin • Silenor
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Lemborexant • Dayvigo
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Quazepam • Doral
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Suvorexant • Belsomra
Temazepam • Restoril
Triazolam • Halcion
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien, Intermezzo

Lemborexant, FDA-approved for the treatment of insomnia, has demonstrated efficacy in improving both sleep onset and sleep maintenance.¹ This novel compound is now the second approved insomnia medication classed as a dual orexin receptor antagonist (Table 1). This targeted mechanism of action aims to enhance sleep while limiting the adverse effects associated with traditional hypnotics.

Clinical implications

Insomnia symptoms affect approximately one-third of the general population at least occasionally. Approximately 10% of individuals meet DSM-5 criteria for insomnia disorder, which require nighttime sleep difficulty and daytime consequences persisting for a minimum of 3 months.² The prevalence is considerably higher in patients with chronic medical disorders and comorbid psychiatric conditions, especially mood, anxiety, substance use, and stress- and trauma-related disorders. Clinical guidelines for treating insomnia disorder typically recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia as a first choice and FDA-approved insomnia medications as secondary options.³

Currently approved insomnia medi­cations fall into 4 distinct pharmaco­dynamics categories.⁴ Benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics include 5 medications with classic benzodiazepine structures (estazolam, flurazepam, quazepam, temazepam, and triazolam) and 3 compounds (eszopiclone, zaleplon, and zolpidem) with alternate structures but similar mechanisms of action. There is 1 melatonin receptor agonist (ramelteon) and 1 histamine receptor antagonist (low-dose doxepin). Joining suvorexant (approved in 2014), lemborexant is the second dual orexin receptor antagonist.

The orexin (also called hypocretin) system was first described in 1998 and its fundamental role in promoting and coordinating wakefulness was quickly established.⁵ A relatively small number of hypothalamic neurons located in the lateral and perifornical regions produce 2 similar orexin neuropeptides (orexin A and orexin B) with widespread distributions, notably reinforcing the wake-promoting activity of histamine, acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Consistent with the typical sleep-wake cycle, orexin release is limited during the nighttime. The orexin neuropeptides interact with 2 G-protein-coupled orexin receptors (OX1R, OX2R).

Animal studies showed that impairment in orexin system activity was associated with symptoms characteristic of narcolepsy, including cataplexy and excessive sleep episodes. Soon after, it was found that humans diagnosed with narcolepsy with cataplexy had markedly low CSF orexin levels.⁶ This recognition that excessively sleepy people with narcolepsy had a profound decrease in orexin production led to the hypothesis that pharmacologically decreasing orexin activity might be sleep-enhancing for insomnia patients, who presumably are excessively aroused. Numerous compounds soon were evaluated for their potential as orexin receptor antagonists. The efficacy of treating insomnia with a dual orexin receptor antagonist in humans was first reported in 2007 with almorexant, a compound that remains investigational.⁷ Research continues to investigate both single and dual orexin antagonist molecules for insomnia and other potential indications.

How it works

Unlike most hypnotics, which have widespread CNS depressant effects, lemborexant has a more targeted action in promoting sleep by suppressing the wake drive supported by the orexin system.⁸ Lemborexant is highly selective for the OX1R and OX2R orexin receptors, where it functions as a competitive antagonist. It is hypothesized that by modulating orexin activity with a receptor antagonist, excessive arousal associated with insomnia can be reduced, thus improving nighttime sleep. The pharmacokinetic properties allow benefits for both sleep onset and maintenance.

Pharmacokinetics

Lemborexant is available in immediate-release tablets with a peak concentration time (T_max) of approximately 1 to 3 hours after ingestion. When taken after a high-fat and high-calorie meal, there is a delay in the T_max, a decrease in the maximum plasma concentration (C_max), and an increase in the concentration area under the curve (AUC_0-inf).¹

Continue to: Metabolism is primarily through...

Metabolism is primarily through the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 pathway, and to a lesser extent through CYP3A5. Concomitant use with moderate or strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers should be avoided, while use with weak CYP3A inhibitors should be limited to the 5-mg dose of lemborexant.

Lemborexant has the potential to induce the metabolism of CYP2B6 substrates, such as bupropion and methadone, possibly leading to reduced efficacy for these medications. Accordingly, the clinical responses to any CYP2B6 substrates should be monitored and dosage adjustments considered.

Concomitant use of lemborexant with alcohol should be avoided because there may be increased impairment in postural stability and memory, in part due to increases in the medication’s C_max and AUC, as well as the direct effects of alcohol.

Efficacy

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, lemborexant demonstrated both objective and subjective evidence of clinically significant benefits for sleep onset and sleep maintenance in patients diagnosed with insomnia disorder.¹ The 2 pivotal efficacy studies were:

• Sunrise 1, a 4-week trial with older adults that included laboratory polysomnography (PSG) studies (objective) and patient-reported sleep measures (subjective) on selected nights⁹
• Sunrise 2, a 6-month trial assessing patient-reported sleep characteristics in adults and older adults.¹⁰

Sunrise 1 was performed with older adults with insomnia who were randomized to groups with nightly use of lemborexant, 5 mg (n = 266), lemborexant, 10 mg (n = 269), zolpidem extended-release, 6.25 mg, as an active comparator (n = 263), or placebo (n = 208).⁹ The age range was 55 to 88 years with a median age of 63 years. Most patients (86.4%) were women. Because this study focused on the assessment of efficacy for treating sleep maintenance difficulty, the inclusion criteria required a subjective report of experiencing a wake time after sleep onset (sWASO) of at least 60 minutes for 3 or more nights per week over the previous 4 weeks. The zolpidem extended-release 6.25 mg comparison was chosen because it has an indication for sleep maintenance insomnia with this recommended dose for older adults.

Continue to: Laboratory PSG monitoring...

Laboratory PSG monitoring was performed for 2 consecutive nights at baseline (before treatment), the first 2 treatment nights, and the final 2 treatment nights (Nights 29 and 30). The primary study endpoint was the change in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) from baseline to the final 2 nights for the lemborexant doses compared with placebo. Additional PSG-based endpoints were similar comparisons for sleep efficiency (percent time asleep during the 8-hour laboratory recording period) and objective wake after sleep onset (WASO) compared with placebo, and WASO during the second half of the night (WASO2H) compared with zolpidem. Patients completed Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) questionnaires at baseline and the end of the treatment to compare disease severity. Subjective assessments were done daily with electronic diary entries that included sleep onset latency (sSOL), sWASO, and subjective sleep efficiency.

In comparison with placebo, both lemborexant doses were associated with significantly improved PSG measures of LPS, WASO, and sleep efficiency during nights 1 and 2 that were maintained through Nights 29 and 30 (Table 2^1,9). The lemborexant doses also demonstrated significant improvements in WASO2H compared with zolpidem and placebo on the first 2 and final 2 treatment nights. Analyses of the subjective assessments (sSOL, sWASO, and sleep efficiency) compared the baseline with means for the first and the last treatment weeks. At both lemborexant doses, the sSOL was significantly reduced during the first and last weeks compared with placebo and zolpidem. Subjective sleep efficiency was significantly improved at both time points for the lemborexant doses, though these were not significantly different from the zolpidem values. The sWASO values were significantly decreased for both lemborexant doses at both time points compared with placebo. During the first treatment week, both lemborexant doses did not differ significantly from zolpidem in the sWASO change from baseline; however, at the final treatment week, the zolpidem value was significantly improved compared with lemborexant, 5 mg, but not significantly different from lemborexant, 10 mg. The ISI change from baseline to the end of the treatment period showed significant improvement for the lemborexant doses and zolpidem extended-release compared with placebo.

In the Sunrise 2 study, patients who met the criteria for insomnia disorder (age range 18 to 88, mean 55; 68% female) were randomized to groups taking nightly doses of lemborexant, 5 mg (n = 323), lemborexant, 10 mg (n = 323), or placebo (n = 325) for 6 months.¹⁰ Inclusion criteria required an sSOL of at least 30 minutes and/or a sWASO of at least 60 minutes 3 times a week or more during the previous 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with daily electronic diary entries, with analyses of change from baseline for sSOL (primary endpoint, baseline to end of 6-month study period), sWASO, and patient-reported sleep efficiency (sSEF). Subjective total sleep time (sTST) represented the estimated time asleep during the time in bed. Additional diary assessments related to sleep quality and morning alertness. All of these subjective assessments were compared as 7-day means for the first week of treatment and the last week of each treatment month.

The superiority of lemborexant, 5 mg and 10 mg, compared with placebo was demonstrated by significant improvements in sSOL, sSEF, sWASO, and sTST during the initial week of the treatment period that remained significant at the end of the 6-month placebo-controlled period (Table 3^1,10). At the end of 6 months, there were significantly more sleep-onset responders and sleep-maintenance responders among patients taking lemborexant compared with those taking placebo. Sleep-onset responders were patients with a baseline sSOL >30 minutes and a mean sSOL ≤20 minutes at the end of the study. Sleep-maintenance responders were participants with a baseline sWASO >60 minutes who at the end of the study had a mean sWASO ≤60 minutes that included a reduction of at least 10 minutes.

Following the 6-month placebo-controlled treatment period, the Sunrise 2 study continued for an additional 6 months of nightly active treatment for continued safety and efficacy assessment. Patients assigned to lemborexant, 5 mg or 10 mg, during the initial period continued on those doses. Those in the placebo group were randomized to either of the 2 lemborexant doses.

Continue to: Safety studies and adverse reactions

Safety studies and adverse reactions

Potential medication effects on middle-of-the-night and next-morning postural stability (body sway measured with an ataxiameter) and cognitive performance, as well as middle-of-the-night auditory awakening threshold, were assessed in a randomized, 4-way crossover study of 56 healthy older adults (women age ≥55 [77.8%], men age ≥65) given a single bedtime dose of placebo, lemborexant, 5 mg, lemborexant, 10 mg, and zolpidem extended-release, 6.25 mg, on separate nights.¹¹ The results were compared with data from a baseline night with the same measures performed prior to the randomization. The middle-of-the-night assessments were done approximately 4 hours after the dose and the next-morning measures were done after 8 hours in bed. The auditory threshold analysis showed no significant differences among the 4 study nights. Compared with placebo, the middle-of-the-night postural stability was significantly worse for both lemborexant doses and zolpidem; however, the zolpidem effect was significantly worse than with either lemborexant dose. The next-morning postural stability measures showed no significant difference from placebo for the lemborexant doses, but zolpidem continued to show a significantly worsened result. The cognitive performance assessment battery provided 4 domain factor scores (power of attention, continuity of attention, quality of memory, and speed of memory retrieval). The middle-of-the-night battery showed no significant difference between lemborexant, 5 mg, and placebo in any domain, while both lemborexant, 10 mg, and zolpidem showed worse performance on some of the attention and/or memory tests. The next-morning cognitive assessment revealed no significant differences from placebo for the treatments.

Respiratory safety was examined in a placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover study of 38 patients diagnosed with mild obstructive sleep apnea who received lemborexant, 10 mg, or placebo nightly during each 8-day period.¹² Neither the apnea-hypopnea index nor the mean oxygen saturation during the lemborexant nights were significantly different from the placebo nights.

The most common adverse reaction during the month-long Sunrise 1 study and the first 30 days of the Sunrise 2 study was somnolence or fatigue, which occurred in 1% receiving placebo, 7% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 10% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg. Headache was reported by 3.5% receiving placebo, 5.9% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 4.5% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg. Nightmare or abnormal dreams occurred with 0.9% receiving placebo, 0.9% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 2.2% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg.¹

Unique clinical issues

Because investigations of individuals who abused sedatives for recreational purposes showed lemborexant had a likeability rating similar to zolpidem and significantly greater than placebo, the US Drug Enforcement Agency has categorized lemborexant as a Schedule IV controlled substance. Research has not shown evidence of physical dependence or withdrawal signs or symptoms upon discontinuation of lemborexant.¹

Contraindications

Narcolepsy is the only contraindication to the use of lemborexant.¹ Narcolepsy is associated with a decrease in the orexin-producing neurons in the hypothalamus, presumably causing the excessive sleepiness, sleep paralysis, hypnagogic hallucinations, and cataplexy characteristic of the disorder. Hypothetically, an orexin antagonist medication could exacerbate these symptoms.

Continue to: Dosing

Lemborexant should be taken no more than once per night immediately before going to bed and with at least 7 hours remaining before the planned time of awakening.¹ The recommended starting dose is 5 mg. The dosage may be increased to a maximum of 10 mg if the initial dose is well tolerated but insufficiently effective. Patients with moderate hepatic impairment or who are concomitantly taking weak CYP3A inhibitors should receive a maximum of 5 mg once nightly. Lemborexant should be avoided in patients with severe hepatic impairment and in those taking moderate or strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers.

Orexin receptor antagonists do not share cross-tolerance with other hypnotics; this should be taken into consideration when switching to lemborexant. Abruptly stopping a benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotic may lead to rebound insomnia and thus may confound the interpretation of the clinical response when starting lemborexant.

Patients prescribed lemborexant should be educated about possible impairment in alertness and motor coordination, especially with the 10-mg dose, which may affect next-morning driving in sensitive individuals.¹³ Caution is advised with doses >5 mg in patients age ≥65 due to possible somnolence and a higher risk of falls.¹

Bottom Line

Lemborexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist indicated for the treatment of insomnia characterized by difficulties with sleep onset and/or sleep maintenance. It promotes sleep by suppressing the wake drive supported by the orexin system. In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, lemborexant demonstrated objective and subjective evidence of clinically significant benefits for sleep onset and sleep maintenance.

Related Resource

• Sateia MJ, Buysse DJ, Krystal AD, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(2):307-349.

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Doxepin • Silenor
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Lemborexant • Dayvigo
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Quazepam • Doral
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Suvorexant • Belsomra
Temazepam • Restoril
Triazolam • Halcion
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien, Intermezzo

Lemborexant, FDA-approved for the treatment of insomnia, has demonstrated efficacy in improving both sleep onset and sleep maintenance.¹ This novel compound is now the second approved insomnia medication classed as a dual orexin receptor antagonist (Table 1). This targeted mechanism of action aims to enhance sleep while limiting the adverse effects associated with traditional hypnotics.

Clinical implications

Insomnia symptoms affect approximately one-third of the general population at least occasionally. Approximately 10% of individuals meet DSM-5 criteria for insomnia disorder, which require nighttime sleep difficulty and daytime consequences persisting for a minimum of 3 months.² The prevalence is considerably higher in patients with chronic medical disorders and comorbid psychiatric conditions, especially mood, anxiety, substance use, and stress- and trauma-related disorders. Clinical guidelines for treating insomnia disorder typically recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia as a first choice and FDA-approved insomnia medications as secondary options.³

Currently approved insomnia medi­cations fall into 4 distinct pharmaco­dynamics categories.⁴ Benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics include 5 medications with classic benzodiazepine structures (estazolam, flurazepam, quazepam, temazepam, and triazolam) and 3 compounds (eszopiclone, zaleplon, and zolpidem) with alternate structures but similar mechanisms of action. There is 1 melatonin receptor agonist (ramelteon) and 1 histamine receptor antagonist (low-dose doxepin). Joining suvorexant (approved in 2014), lemborexant is the second dual orexin receptor antagonist.

The orexin (also called hypocretin) system was first described in 1998 and its fundamental role in promoting and coordinating wakefulness was quickly established.⁵ A relatively small number of hypothalamic neurons located in the lateral and perifornical regions produce 2 similar orexin neuropeptides (orexin A and orexin B) with widespread distributions, notably reinforcing the wake-promoting activity of histamine, acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Consistent with the typical sleep-wake cycle, orexin release is limited during the nighttime. The orexin neuropeptides interact with 2 G-protein-coupled orexin receptors (OX1R, OX2R).

Animal studies showed that impairment in orexin system activity was associated with symptoms characteristic of narcolepsy, including cataplexy and excessive sleep episodes. Soon after, it was found that humans diagnosed with narcolepsy with cataplexy had markedly low CSF orexin levels.⁶ This recognition that excessively sleepy people with narcolepsy had a profound decrease in orexin production led to the hypothesis that pharmacologically decreasing orexin activity might be sleep-enhancing for insomnia patients, who presumably are excessively aroused. Numerous compounds soon were evaluated for their potential as orexin receptor antagonists. The efficacy of treating insomnia with a dual orexin receptor antagonist in humans was first reported in 2007 with almorexant, a compound that remains investigational.⁷ Research continues to investigate both single and dual orexin antagonist molecules for insomnia and other potential indications.

How it works

Unlike most hypnotics, which have widespread CNS depressant effects, lemborexant has a more targeted action in promoting sleep by suppressing the wake drive supported by the orexin system.⁸ Lemborexant is highly selective for the OX1R and OX2R orexin receptors, where it functions as a competitive antagonist. It is hypothesized that by modulating orexin activity with a receptor antagonist, excessive arousal associated with insomnia can be reduced, thus improving nighttime sleep. The pharmacokinetic properties allow benefits for both sleep onset and maintenance.

Pharmacokinetics

Lemborexant is available in immediate-release tablets with a peak concentration time (T_max) of approximately 1 to 3 hours after ingestion. When taken after a high-fat and high-calorie meal, there is a delay in the T_max, a decrease in the maximum plasma concentration (C_max), and an increase in the concentration area under the curve (AUC_0-inf).¹

Continue to: Metabolism is primarily through...

Metabolism is primarily through the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 pathway, and to a lesser extent through CYP3A5. Concomitant use with moderate or strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers should be avoided, while use with weak CYP3A inhibitors should be limited to the 5-mg dose of lemborexant.

Lemborexant has the potential to induce the metabolism of CYP2B6 substrates, such as bupropion and methadone, possibly leading to reduced efficacy for these medications. Accordingly, the clinical responses to any CYP2B6 substrates should be monitored and dosage adjustments considered.

Concomitant use of lemborexant with alcohol should be avoided because there may be increased impairment in postural stability and memory, in part due to increases in the medication’s C_max and AUC, as well as the direct effects of alcohol.

Efficacy

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, lemborexant demonstrated both objective and subjective evidence of clinically significant benefits for sleep onset and sleep maintenance in patients diagnosed with insomnia disorder.¹ The 2 pivotal efficacy studies were:

• Sunrise 1, a 4-week trial with older adults that included laboratory polysomnography (PSG) studies (objective) and patient-reported sleep measures (subjective) on selected nights⁹
• Sunrise 2, a 6-month trial assessing patient-reported sleep characteristics in adults and older adults.¹⁰

Sunrise 1 was performed with older adults with insomnia who were randomized to groups with nightly use of lemborexant, 5 mg (n = 266), lemborexant, 10 mg (n = 269), zolpidem extended-release, 6.25 mg, as an active comparator (n = 263), or placebo (n = 208).⁹ The age range was 55 to 88 years with a median age of 63 years. Most patients (86.4%) were women. Because this study focused on the assessment of efficacy for treating sleep maintenance difficulty, the inclusion criteria required a subjective report of experiencing a wake time after sleep onset (sWASO) of at least 60 minutes for 3 or more nights per week over the previous 4 weeks. The zolpidem extended-release 6.25 mg comparison was chosen because it has an indication for sleep maintenance insomnia with this recommended dose for older adults.

Continue to: Laboratory PSG monitoring...

Laboratory PSG monitoring was performed for 2 consecutive nights at baseline (before treatment), the first 2 treatment nights, and the final 2 treatment nights (Nights 29 and 30). The primary study endpoint was the change in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) from baseline to the final 2 nights for the lemborexant doses compared with placebo. Additional PSG-based endpoints were similar comparisons for sleep efficiency (percent time asleep during the 8-hour laboratory recording period) and objective wake after sleep onset (WASO) compared with placebo, and WASO during the second half of the night (WASO2H) compared with zolpidem. Patients completed Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) questionnaires at baseline and the end of the treatment to compare disease severity. Subjective assessments were done daily with electronic diary entries that included sleep onset latency (sSOL), sWASO, and subjective sleep efficiency.

In comparison with placebo, both lemborexant doses were associated with significantly improved PSG measures of LPS, WASO, and sleep efficiency during nights 1 and 2 that were maintained through Nights 29 and 30 (Table 2^1,9). The lemborexant doses also demonstrated significant improvements in WASO2H compared with zolpidem and placebo on the first 2 and final 2 treatment nights. Analyses of the subjective assessments (sSOL, sWASO, and sleep efficiency) compared the baseline with means for the first and the last treatment weeks. At both lemborexant doses, the sSOL was significantly reduced during the first and last weeks compared with placebo and zolpidem. Subjective sleep efficiency was significantly improved at both time points for the lemborexant doses, though these were not significantly different from the zolpidem values. The sWASO values were significantly decreased for both lemborexant doses at both time points compared with placebo. During the first treatment week, both lemborexant doses did not differ significantly from zolpidem in the sWASO change from baseline; however, at the final treatment week, the zolpidem value was significantly improved compared with lemborexant, 5 mg, but not significantly different from lemborexant, 10 mg. The ISI change from baseline to the end of the treatment period showed significant improvement for the lemborexant doses and zolpidem extended-release compared with placebo.

In the Sunrise 2 study, patients who met the criteria for insomnia disorder (age range 18 to 88, mean 55; 68% female) were randomized to groups taking nightly doses of lemborexant, 5 mg (n = 323), lemborexant, 10 mg (n = 323), or placebo (n = 325) for 6 months.¹⁰ Inclusion criteria required an sSOL of at least 30 minutes and/or a sWASO of at least 60 minutes 3 times a week or more during the previous 4 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with daily electronic diary entries, with analyses of change from baseline for sSOL (primary endpoint, baseline to end of 6-month study period), sWASO, and patient-reported sleep efficiency (sSEF). Subjective total sleep time (sTST) represented the estimated time asleep during the time in bed. Additional diary assessments related to sleep quality and morning alertness. All of these subjective assessments were compared as 7-day means for the first week of treatment and the last week of each treatment month.

The superiority of lemborexant, 5 mg and 10 mg, compared with placebo was demonstrated by significant improvements in sSOL, sSEF, sWASO, and sTST during the initial week of the treatment period that remained significant at the end of the 6-month placebo-controlled period (Table 3^1,10). At the end of 6 months, there were significantly more sleep-onset responders and sleep-maintenance responders among patients taking lemborexant compared with those taking placebo. Sleep-onset responders were patients with a baseline sSOL >30 minutes and a mean sSOL ≤20 minutes at the end of the study. Sleep-maintenance responders were participants with a baseline sWASO >60 minutes who at the end of the study had a mean sWASO ≤60 minutes that included a reduction of at least 10 minutes.

Following the 6-month placebo-controlled treatment period, the Sunrise 2 study continued for an additional 6 months of nightly active treatment for continued safety and efficacy assessment. Patients assigned to lemborexant, 5 mg or 10 mg, during the initial period continued on those doses. Those in the placebo group were randomized to either of the 2 lemborexant doses.

Continue to: Safety studies and adverse reactions

Safety studies and adverse reactions

Potential medication effects on middle-of-the-night and next-morning postural stability (body sway measured with an ataxiameter) and cognitive performance, as well as middle-of-the-night auditory awakening threshold, were assessed in a randomized, 4-way crossover study of 56 healthy older adults (women age ≥55 [77.8%], men age ≥65) given a single bedtime dose of placebo, lemborexant, 5 mg, lemborexant, 10 mg, and zolpidem extended-release, 6.25 mg, on separate nights.¹¹ The results were compared with data from a baseline night with the same measures performed prior to the randomization. The middle-of-the-night assessments were done approximately 4 hours after the dose and the next-morning measures were done after 8 hours in bed. The auditory threshold analysis showed no significant differences among the 4 study nights. Compared with placebo, the middle-of-the-night postural stability was significantly worse for both lemborexant doses and zolpidem; however, the zolpidem effect was significantly worse than with either lemborexant dose. The next-morning postural stability measures showed no significant difference from placebo for the lemborexant doses, but zolpidem continued to show a significantly worsened result. The cognitive performance assessment battery provided 4 domain factor scores (power of attention, continuity of attention, quality of memory, and speed of memory retrieval). The middle-of-the-night battery showed no significant difference between lemborexant, 5 mg, and placebo in any domain, while both lemborexant, 10 mg, and zolpidem showed worse performance on some of the attention and/or memory tests. The next-morning cognitive assessment revealed no significant differences from placebo for the treatments.

Respiratory safety was examined in a placebo-controlled, 2-period crossover study of 38 patients diagnosed with mild obstructive sleep apnea who received lemborexant, 10 mg, or placebo nightly during each 8-day period.¹² Neither the apnea-hypopnea index nor the mean oxygen saturation during the lemborexant nights were significantly different from the placebo nights.

The most common adverse reaction during the month-long Sunrise 1 study and the first 30 days of the Sunrise 2 study was somnolence or fatigue, which occurred in 1% receiving placebo, 7% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 10% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg. Headache was reported by 3.5% receiving placebo, 5.9% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 4.5% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg. Nightmare or abnormal dreams occurred with 0.9% receiving placebo, 0.9% receiving lemborexant, 5 mg, and 2.2% receiving lemborexant, 10 mg.¹

Unique clinical issues

Because investigations of individuals who abused sedatives for recreational purposes showed lemborexant had a likeability rating similar to zolpidem and significantly greater than placebo, the US Drug Enforcement Agency has categorized lemborexant as a Schedule IV controlled substance. Research has not shown evidence of physical dependence or withdrawal signs or symptoms upon discontinuation of lemborexant.¹

Contraindications

Narcolepsy is the only contraindication to the use of lemborexant.¹ Narcolepsy is associated with a decrease in the orexin-producing neurons in the hypothalamus, presumably causing the excessive sleepiness, sleep paralysis, hypnagogic hallucinations, and cataplexy characteristic of the disorder. Hypothetically, an orexin antagonist medication could exacerbate these symptoms.

Continue to: Dosing

Lemborexant should be taken no more than once per night immediately before going to bed and with at least 7 hours remaining before the planned time of awakening.¹ The recommended starting dose is 5 mg. The dosage may be increased to a maximum of 10 mg if the initial dose is well tolerated but insufficiently effective. Patients with moderate hepatic impairment or who are concomitantly taking weak CYP3A inhibitors should receive a maximum of 5 mg once nightly. Lemborexant should be avoided in patients with severe hepatic impairment and in those taking moderate or strong CYP3A inhibitors or inducers.

Orexin receptor antagonists do not share cross-tolerance with other hypnotics; this should be taken into consideration when switching to lemborexant. Abruptly stopping a benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotic may lead to rebound insomnia and thus may confound the interpretation of the clinical response when starting lemborexant.

Patients prescribed lemborexant should be educated about possible impairment in alertness and motor coordination, especially with the 10-mg dose, which may affect next-morning driving in sensitive individuals.¹³ Caution is advised with doses >5 mg in patients age ≥65 due to possible somnolence and a higher risk of falls.¹

Bottom Line

Lemborexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist indicated for the treatment of insomnia characterized by difficulties with sleep onset and/or sleep maintenance. It promotes sleep by suppressing the wake drive supported by the orexin system. In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, lemborexant demonstrated objective and subjective evidence of clinically significant benefits for sleep onset and sleep maintenance.

Related Resource

• Sateia MJ, Buysse DJ, Krystal AD, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(2):307-349.

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Doxepin • Silenor
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Lemborexant • Dayvigo
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Quazepam • Doral
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Suvorexant • Belsomra
Temazepam • Restoril
Triazolam • Halcion
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien, Intermezzo

CASE Prolonged, painful erections

Mr. G, age 27, who has a history of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), presents to his internist’s office with complaints of “masturbating several times a day” and having ejaculatory delay of up to 50 minutes with intercourse. The frequent masturbation was an attempt to “cure” the ejaculatory delay. In addition, Mr. G reports that for the past 5 nights, he has awoke every 3 hours with a painful erection that lasted 1.5 to 2.5 hours, after which he would fall asleep, only to wake once again to the same phenomenon.

Mr. G’s symptoms began 3 weeks ago after his psychiatrist adjusted the dose of his medication for OCD. Mr. G had been receiving fluoxetine, 10 mg/d, for the past 3 years to manage his OCD, without improvement. During a recent consultation, his psychiatrist increased the dose to 20 mg/d, with the expectation that further dose increases might be necessary to treat his OCD.

HISTORY Concurrent GAD

Mr. G is single and in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Three weeks earlier, when he was examined by his psychiatrist, Mr. G’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score was 28 and his Beck Anxiety Inventory score was 24. Based on these scores, the psychiatrist concluded Mr. G had concurrent generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

EVALUATION Workup is normal

On presentation to his internist’s office, Mr. G’s laboratory values are all within normal range, including a chemistry panel, complete blood count with differential, and electrocardiogram. A human immunodeficiency virus test is negative. His internist instructs Mr. G to return to his psychiatrist.

[polldaddy:10640161]

TREATMENT Dose adjustment

Based on Mr. G’s description of painful and persistent erections in the absence of sexual stimulation or arousal, and because these episodes have occurred 5 consecutive nights, the psychiatrist makes a provisional diagnosis of stuttering priapism and reduces the fluoxetine dose from 20 to 10 mg/d.

The author’s observations

Priapism is classically defined as a persistent, unwanted penile or clitoral engorgement in the absence of sexual desire/arousal or stimulation. It can last for up to 4 to 6 hours¹ orit can take a so-called “stuttering form” characterized by brief, recurrent, self-limited episodes. Priapism is a urologic emergency resulting in erectile dysfunction in 30% to 90% of patients. It is multifactorial and can be characterized as low-flow (occlusive) or high-flow (nonischemic). Most priapism is primary or idiopathic in nature; the incidence is 1.5 per 100,000 individuals (primarily men), with bimodal peaks, and it can occur in all age groups.² Secondary priapism can occur from many causes (Table).

Mechanism is unclear

The molecular mechanism of priapism is not completely understood. Normally, nitrous oxide mediates penile erection. However, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) acts at several levels to create smooth muscle reaction, leading to either penile tumescence or, in some cases, priapism. Stuttering or intermittent ischemic priapism is thought to be a downregulation of phosphodiesterase type 5, causing excess cGMP with subsequent smooth muscle relaxation in the penis.³

Continue to: Drug-induced priapism

Drug-induced priapism

Drug-induced priapism is commonly believed to be associated with alpha-1 adrenergic receptor blockade.⁴ This also results in dizziness and orthostatic hypotension.⁵ Trazodone is commonly associated with the development of secondary priapism; however, in the last 30 years, multiple case reports have demonstrated that a variety of psycho­active agents have been associated with low-flowpriapism.⁶ Most case reports have focused on new-onset priapism associated with the introduction of a new medication. Based on a recent informal search of Medline, since 1989, there have been >36 case reports of priapism associated with psychotropic use. Stuttering priapism is less frequently discussed in the literature.⁷

Ischemic priapism accounts for 95% of all reports. It can be associated with medication use or hematologic disorders, or it can be triggered by sexual activity. Often, patients who experience an episode will abstain from sexual contact.

The etiology of stuttering priapism is less clear. Episodes of stuttering priapism often occur during sleep and can resolve spontaneously.⁸ They are a form of ischemic priapism and are seen in patients with sickle cell anemia. It is not known how many patients with stuttering priapism will convert to the nonremitting form, which may require chemical or surgical intervention.⁹ Stuttering priapism may go unreported and perhaps may be overlooked by patients based on its frequency and intensity.

The activating selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine has a long half-life and is a potent inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 2D6 isoenzyme system. It inhibits serotonin transporter proteins. It is also a weak norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, an effect that increases with increasing doses of the medication. Its 5HT2C antagonism is proposed as the mechanism of its activating properties.¹⁰ In Mr. G’s case, it is possible that fluoxetine’s weak norepinephrine reuptake inhibition resulted in an intermittent priapism effect mediated through the pathways described above.

OUTCOME Symptoms resolve

Approximately 1 week after Mr. G’s fluoxetine dose is reduced, his symptoms of priapism abated. The fluoxetine is discontinued and his ejaculatory delay resolves. Mr. G is started on fluvoxamine, 150 mg/d, which results in a significant decrease of both GAD and OCD symptoms with no notable ejaculatory delay, and no recurrence of priapism.

Continue to: The author's observations

Mr. G’s case and other case reports suggest that psychiatrists should caution patients who are prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics that stuttering priapism is a possible adverse effect.¹¹ As seen in Mr. G’s case, fluoxetine (when used chronically) can moderate vascular responses at the pre- and post-synaptic adrenergic receptor.¹¹ Priapism induced by a psychotropic medication will not necessarily lead to a longer-term, unremitting priapism, but it can be dramatic, frightening, and lead to noncompliance. Along with obtaining a standard history that includes asking patients about prior adverse medication events, psychiatrists also should ask their patients if they have experienced any instances of transient priapism that may require further evaluation.

Bottom Line

Any psychotropic medication that has the capacity to act on alpha adrenergic receptors can cause priapism. Ask patients if they have had any unusual erections/ clitoral engorgement while taking any psychotropic medications, because many patients will be hesitant to volunteer such information.

Related Resource

• Thippaiah SM, Nagaraja S, Birur B, et al. Successful management of psychotropics induced stuttering priapism with pseudoephedrine in a patient with schizophrenia. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2018;48(2):29-33.

Drug Brand Names

Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

CASE Prolonged, painful erections

Mr. G, age 27, who has a history of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), presents to his internist’s office with complaints of “masturbating several times a day” and having ejaculatory delay of up to 50 minutes with intercourse. The frequent masturbation was an attempt to “cure” the ejaculatory delay. In addition, Mr. G reports that for the past 5 nights, he has awoke every 3 hours with a painful erection that lasted 1.5 to 2.5 hours, after which he would fall asleep, only to wake once again to the same phenomenon.

Mr. G’s symptoms began 3 weeks ago after his psychiatrist adjusted the dose of his medication for OCD. Mr. G had been receiving fluoxetine, 10 mg/d, for the past 3 years to manage his OCD, without improvement. During a recent consultation, his psychiatrist increased the dose to 20 mg/d, with the expectation that further dose increases might be necessary to treat his OCD.

HISTORY Concurrent GAD

Mr. G is single and in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Three weeks earlier, when he was examined by his psychiatrist, Mr. G’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score was 28 and his Beck Anxiety Inventory score was 24. Based on these scores, the psychiatrist concluded Mr. G had concurrent generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

EVALUATION Workup is normal

On presentation to his internist’s office, Mr. G’s laboratory values are all within normal range, including a chemistry panel, complete blood count with differential, and electrocardiogram. A human immunodeficiency virus test is negative. His internist instructs Mr. G to return to his psychiatrist.

[polldaddy:10640161]

TREATMENT Dose adjustment

Based on Mr. G’s description of painful and persistent erections in the absence of sexual stimulation or arousal, and because these episodes have occurred 5 consecutive nights, the psychiatrist makes a provisional diagnosis of stuttering priapism and reduces the fluoxetine dose from 20 to 10 mg/d.

The author’s observations

Priapism is classically defined as a persistent, unwanted penile or clitoral engorgement in the absence of sexual desire/arousal or stimulation. It can last for up to 4 to 6 hours¹ orit can take a so-called “stuttering form” characterized by brief, recurrent, self-limited episodes. Priapism is a urologic emergency resulting in erectile dysfunction in 30% to 90% of patients. It is multifactorial and can be characterized as low-flow (occlusive) or high-flow (nonischemic). Most priapism is primary or idiopathic in nature; the incidence is 1.5 per 100,000 individuals (primarily men), with bimodal peaks, and it can occur in all age groups.² Secondary priapism can occur from many causes (Table).

Mechanism is unclear

The molecular mechanism of priapism is not completely understood. Normally, nitrous oxide mediates penile erection. However, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) acts at several levels to create smooth muscle reaction, leading to either penile tumescence or, in some cases, priapism. Stuttering or intermittent ischemic priapism is thought to be a downregulation of phosphodiesterase type 5, causing excess cGMP with subsequent smooth muscle relaxation in the penis.³

Continue to: Drug-induced priapism

Drug-induced priapism

Drug-induced priapism is commonly believed to be associated with alpha-1 adrenergic receptor blockade.⁴ This also results in dizziness and orthostatic hypotension.⁵ Trazodone is commonly associated with the development of secondary priapism; however, in the last 30 years, multiple case reports have demonstrated that a variety of psycho­active agents have been associated with low-flowpriapism.⁶ Most case reports have focused on new-onset priapism associated with the introduction of a new medication. Based on a recent informal search of Medline, since 1989, there have been >36 case reports of priapism associated with psychotropic use. Stuttering priapism is less frequently discussed in the literature.⁷

Ischemic priapism accounts for 95% of all reports. It can be associated with medication use or hematologic disorders, or it can be triggered by sexual activity. Often, patients who experience an episode will abstain from sexual contact.

The etiology of stuttering priapism is less clear. Episodes of stuttering priapism often occur during sleep and can resolve spontaneously.⁸ They are a form of ischemic priapism and are seen in patients with sickle cell anemia. It is not known how many patients with stuttering priapism will convert to the nonremitting form, which may require chemical or surgical intervention.⁹ Stuttering priapism may go unreported and perhaps may be overlooked by patients based on its frequency and intensity.

The activating selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine has a long half-life and is a potent inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 2D6 isoenzyme system. It inhibits serotonin transporter proteins. It is also a weak norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, an effect that increases with increasing doses of the medication. Its 5HT2C antagonism is proposed as the mechanism of its activating properties.¹⁰ In Mr. G’s case, it is possible that fluoxetine’s weak norepinephrine reuptake inhibition resulted in an intermittent priapism effect mediated through the pathways described above.

OUTCOME Symptoms resolve

Approximately 1 week after Mr. G’s fluoxetine dose is reduced, his symptoms of priapism abated. The fluoxetine is discontinued and his ejaculatory delay resolves. Mr. G is started on fluvoxamine, 150 mg/d, which results in a significant decrease of both GAD and OCD symptoms with no notable ejaculatory delay, and no recurrence of priapism.

Continue to: The author's observations

Mr. G’s case and other case reports suggest that psychiatrists should caution patients who are prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics that stuttering priapism is a possible adverse effect.¹¹ As seen in Mr. G’s case, fluoxetine (when used chronically) can moderate vascular responses at the pre- and post-synaptic adrenergic receptor.¹¹ Priapism induced by a psychotropic medication will not necessarily lead to a longer-term, unremitting priapism, but it can be dramatic, frightening, and lead to noncompliance. Along with obtaining a standard history that includes asking patients about prior adverse medication events, psychiatrists also should ask their patients if they have experienced any instances of transient priapism that may require further evaluation.

Bottom Line

Any psychotropic medication that has the capacity to act on alpha adrenergic receptors can cause priapism. Ask patients if they have had any unusual erections/ clitoral engorgement while taking any psychotropic medications, because many patients will be hesitant to volunteer such information.

Related Resource

• Thippaiah SM, Nagaraja S, Birur B, et al. Successful management of psychotropics induced stuttering priapism with pseudoephedrine in a patient with schizophrenia. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2018;48(2):29-33.

Drug Brand Names

Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

CASE Prolonged, painful erections

Mr. G, age 27, who has a history of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), presents to his internist’s office with complaints of “masturbating several times a day” and having ejaculatory delay of up to 50 minutes with intercourse. The frequent masturbation was an attempt to “cure” the ejaculatory delay. In addition, Mr. G reports that for the past 5 nights, he has awoke every 3 hours with a painful erection that lasted 1.5 to 2.5 hours, after which he would fall asleep, only to wake once again to the same phenomenon.

Mr. G’s symptoms began 3 weeks ago after his psychiatrist adjusted the dose of his medication for OCD. Mr. G had been receiving fluoxetine, 10 mg/d, for the past 3 years to manage his OCD, without improvement. During a recent consultation, his psychiatrist increased the dose to 20 mg/d, with the expectation that further dose increases might be necessary to treat his OCD.

HISTORY Concurrent GAD

Mr. G is single and in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Three weeks earlier, when he was examined by his psychiatrist, Mr. G’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score was 28 and his Beck Anxiety Inventory score was 24. Based on these scores, the psychiatrist concluded Mr. G had concurrent generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

EVALUATION Workup is normal

On presentation to his internist’s office, Mr. G’s laboratory values are all within normal range, including a chemistry panel, complete blood count with differential, and electrocardiogram. A human immunodeficiency virus test is negative. His internist instructs Mr. G to return to his psychiatrist.

[polldaddy:10640161]

TREATMENT Dose adjustment

Based on Mr. G’s description of painful and persistent erections in the absence of sexual stimulation or arousal, and because these episodes have occurred 5 consecutive nights, the psychiatrist makes a provisional diagnosis of stuttering priapism and reduces the fluoxetine dose from 20 to 10 mg/d.

The author’s observations

Priapism is classically defined as a persistent, unwanted penile or clitoral engorgement in the absence of sexual desire/arousal or stimulation. It can last for up to 4 to 6 hours¹ orit can take a so-called “stuttering form” characterized by brief, recurrent, self-limited episodes. Priapism is a urologic emergency resulting in erectile dysfunction in 30% to 90% of patients. It is multifactorial and can be characterized as low-flow (occlusive) or high-flow (nonischemic). Most priapism is primary or idiopathic in nature; the incidence is 1.5 per 100,000 individuals (primarily men), with bimodal peaks, and it can occur in all age groups.² Secondary priapism can occur from many causes (Table).

Mechanism is unclear

The molecular mechanism of priapism is not completely understood. Normally, nitrous oxide mediates penile erection. However, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) acts at several levels to create smooth muscle reaction, leading to either penile tumescence or, in some cases, priapism. Stuttering or intermittent ischemic priapism is thought to be a downregulation of phosphodiesterase type 5, causing excess cGMP with subsequent smooth muscle relaxation in the penis.³

Continue to: Drug-induced priapism

Drug-induced priapism

Drug-induced priapism is commonly believed to be associated with alpha-1 adrenergic receptor blockade.⁴ This also results in dizziness and orthostatic hypotension.⁵ Trazodone is commonly associated with the development of secondary priapism; however, in the last 30 years, multiple case reports have demonstrated that a variety of psycho­active agents have been associated with low-flowpriapism.⁶ Most case reports have focused on new-onset priapism associated with the introduction of a new medication. Based on a recent informal search of Medline, since 1989, there have been >36 case reports of priapism associated with psychotropic use. Stuttering priapism is less frequently discussed in the literature.⁷

Ischemic priapism accounts for 95% of all reports. It can be associated with medication use or hematologic disorders, or it can be triggered by sexual activity. Often, patients who experience an episode will abstain from sexual contact.

The etiology of stuttering priapism is less clear. Episodes of stuttering priapism often occur during sleep and can resolve spontaneously.⁸ They are a form of ischemic priapism and are seen in patients with sickle cell anemia. It is not known how many patients with stuttering priapism will convert to the nonremitting form, which may require chemical or surgical intervention.⁹ Stuttering priapism may go unreported and perhaps may be overlooked by patients based on its frequency and intensity.

The activating selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine has a long half-life and is a potent inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 2D6 isoenzyme system. It inhibits serotonin transporter proteins. It is also a weak norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, an effect that increases with increasing doses of the medication. Its 5HT2C antagonism is proposed as the mechanism of its activating properties.¹⁰ In Mr. G’s case, it is possible that fluoxetine’s weak norepinephrine reuptake inhibition resulted in an intermittent priapism effect mediated through the pathways described above.

OUTCOME Symptoms resolve

Approximately 1 week after Mr. G’s fluoxetine dose is reduced, his symptoms of priapism abated. The fluoxetine is discontinued and his ejaculatory delay resolves. Mr. G is started on fluvoxamine, 150 mg/d, which results in a significant decrease of both GAD and OCD symptoms with no notable ejaculatory delay, and no recurrence of priapism.

Continue to: The author's observations

Mr. G’s case and other case reports suggest that psychiatrists should caution patients who are prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics that stuttering priapism is a possible adverse effect.¹¹ As seen in Mr. G’s case, fluoxetine (when used chronically) can moderate vascular responses at the pre- and post-synaptic adrenergic receptor.¹¹ Priapism induced by a psychotropic medication will not necessarily lead to a longer-term, unremitting priapism, but it can be dramatic, frightening, and lead to noncompliance. Along with obtaining a standard history that includes asking patients about prior adverse medication events, psychiatrists also should ask their patients if they have experienced any instances of transient priapism that may require further evaluation.

Bottom Line

Any psychotropic medication that has the capacity to act on alpha adrenergic receptors can cause priapism. Ask patients if they have had any unusual erections/ clitoral engorgement while taking any psychotropic medications, because many patients will be hesitant to volunteer such information.

Related Resource

• Thippaiah SM, Nagaraja S, Birur B, et al. Successful management of psychotropics induced stuttering priapism with pseudoephedrine in a patient with schizophrenia. Psychopharmacol Bull. 2018;48(2):29-33.

Drug Brand Names

Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

“Becoming is better than being.”

—Carol Dweck

The words spoken about her in the staff meeting were flattering. She’d just been acknowledged with a departmental teaching award for the second year in a row. With only 3 years under her belt since completing training, the former chief resident was living up to all they’d anticipated.

Eager students requested to be on her team and colleagues delighted in sharing patients with her. “Great, as always,” her peers and learners said in hallways and evaluations. This would come to define her identity.

Things were going well. She was succeeding. But she began to wonder if this reciprocating engine of accolades represented who she truly was. Was she really that good? Was she an imposter? In her performance meetings, the feedback never wavered: “Great, as always.”

The following year she would leave for a different job.

While specific plans for growth and improvement often get laid out for struggling colleagues and learners, far less effort is devoted to coaching high performers. Feedback that consists of nonspecific compliments may hinder potential, growth, and job satisfaction. We outline strategies for preventing this professional plateau in those you lead.

In Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, psychologist Carol Dweck describes how emphasis on qualities such as “being smart” or, in this example, “great,” underscores this “fixed mindset” that certain attributes are set in stone.¹ Conversely, she defines the “growth mindset” as a belief that potential can be cultivated through efforts. Even when there aren’t obvious issues with performance, the failure, fine-tuning, and feedback necessary for resilience and, ultimately, sustained growth require intention.

Emphasize Effort

Instead of lauding an individual for being “great, as always,” consider focusing on the effort it required to get there. For example, regarding the aforementioned junior colleague who’d just won awards, a typical compliment might be: “Wow, you’re on fire!” An option, to promote a growth mindset, might be: “You work very hard at bedside teaching and innovative curriculum development. I’m happy to see that our learners and department have recognized your commitment and effort.” This language also affirms others and makes achievements seem attainable to all.

Provide Active Coaching

Identifying specific opportunities for development can challenge individuals to expand their skills. Even those who are doing well have room to become even better. Coproduction of new milestones that push beyond current comfort zones can acknowledge current achievements while encouraging continued growth—and make things personal. For example, encouraging an individual to apply to a national faculty development program, such as the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Academic Hospitalist Academy, could help them expand their skills and social network.

Offer Meaningful Feedback

Prioritizing feedback is essential for growth and peak performance. This can be particularly powerful when the observer moves beyond basic expectations to incorporate personal goals. Concrete feedback measured against individual potential then takes the place of nondescript compliments. For example, you could say: “Your teaching on systolic ejection murmurs was on target for the students. Next time I want to challenge you to broaden your teaching script to include points appropriate for more seasoned learners.” This feedback leaves them with a set of tailored “marching orders” to guide practice and improvement.

No matter where a person stands on the spectrum of performance, growth in medicine relies on deliberate practice, active coaching, meaningful feedback, and graduated opportunities. Even the most proficient among us can stagnate without these things. If we aren’t careful, this reputational inertia could amplify imposter syndrome, prevent individuals from achieving their full potential, and threaten faculty retention. Intentional work toward a growth mindset allows everyone to grow—and be seen.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

“Becoming is better than being.”

—Carol Dweck

The words spoken about her in the staff meeting were flattering. She’d just been acknowledged with a departmental teaching award for the second year in a row. With only 3 years under her belt since completing training, the former chief resident was living up to all they’d anticipated.

Eager students requested to be on her team and colleagues delighted in sharing patients with her. “Great, as always,” her peers and learners said in hallways and evaluations. This would come to define her identity.

Things were going well. She was succeeding. But she began to wonder if this reciprocating engine of accolades represented who she truly was. Was she really that good? Was she an imposter? In her performance meetings, the feedback never wavered: “Great, as always.”

The following year she would leave for a different job.

While specific plans for growth and improvement often get laid out for struggling colleagues and learners, far less effort is devoted to coaching high performers. Feedback that consists of nonspecific compliments may hinder potential, growth, and job satisfaction. We outline strategies for preventing this professional plateau in those you lead.

In Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, psychologist Carol Dweck describes how emphasis on qualities such as “being smart” or, in this example, “great,” underscores this “fixed mindset” that certain attributes are set in stone.¹ Conversely, she defines the “growth mindset” as a belief that potential can be cultivated through efforts. Even when there aren’t obvious issues with performance, the failure, fine-tuning, and feedback necessary for resilience and, ultimately, sustained growth require intention.

Emphasize Effort

Instead of lauding an individual for being “great, as always,” consider focusing on the effort it required to get there. For example, regarding the aforementioned junior colleague who’d just won awards, a typical compliment might be: “Wow, you’re on fire!” An option, to promote a growth mindset, might be: “You work very hard at bedside teaching and innovative curriculum development. I’m happy to see that our learners and department have recognized your commitment and effort.” This language also affirms others and makes achievements seem attainable to all.

Provide Active Coaching

Identifying specific opportunities for development can challenge individuals to expand their skills. Even those who are doing well have room to become even better. Coproduction of new milestones that push beyond current comfort zones can acknowledge current achievements while encouraging continued growth—and make things personal. For example, encouraging an individual to apply to a national faculty development program, such as the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Academic Hospitalist Academy, could help them expand their skills and social network.

Offer Meaningful Feedback

Prioritizing feedback is essential for growth and peak performance. This can be particularly powerful when the observer moves beyond basic expectations to incorporate personal goals. Concrete feedback measured against individual potential then takes the place of nondescript compliments. For example, you could say: “Your teaching on systolic ejection murmurs was on target for the students. Next time I want to challenge you to broaden your teaching script to include points appropriate for more seasoned learners.” This feedback leaves them with a set of tailored “marching orders” to guide practice and improvement.

No matter where a person stands on the spectrum of performance, growth in medicine relies on deliberate practice, active coaching, meaningful feedback, and graduated opportunities. Even the most proficient among us can stagnate without these things. If we aren’t careful, this reputational inertia could amplify imposter syndrome, prevent individuals from achieving their full potential, and threaten faculty retention. Intentional work toward a growth mindset allows everyone to grow—and be seen.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

“Becoming is better than being.”

—Carol Dweck

The words spoken about her in the staff meeting were flattering. She’d just been acknowledged with a departmental teaching award for the second year in a row. With only 3 years under her belt since completing training, the former chief resident was living up to all they’d anticipated.

Eager students requested to be on her team and colleagues delighted in sharing patients with her. “Great, as always,” her peers and learners said in hallways and evaluations. This would come to define her identity.

Things were going well. She was succeeding. But she began to wonder if this reciprocating engine of accolades represented who she truly was. Was she really that good? Was she an imposter? In her performance meetings, the feedback never wavered: “Great, as always.”

The following year she would leave for a different job.

While specific plans for growth and improvement often get laid out for struggling colleagues and learners, far less effort is devoted to coaching high performers. Feedback that consists of nonspecific compliments may hinder potential, growth, and job satisfaction. We outline strategies for preventing this professional plateau in those you lead.

In Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, psychologist Carol Dweck describes how emphasis on qualities such as “being smart” or, in this example, “great,” underscores this “fixed mindset” that certain attributes are set in stone.¹ Conversely, she defines the “growth mindset” as a belief that potential can be cultivated through efforts. Even when there aren’t obvious issues with performance, the failure, fine-tuning, and feedback necessary for resilience and, ultimately, sustained growth require intention.

Emphasize Effort

Instead of lauding an individual for being “great, as always,” consider focusing on the effort it required to get there. For example, regarding the aforementioned junior colleague who’d just won awards, a typical compliment might be: “Wow, you’re on fire!” An option, to promote a growth mindset, might be: “You work very hard at bedside teaching and innovative curriculum development. I’m happy to see that our learners and department have recognized your commitment and effort.” This language also affirms others and makes achievements seem attainable to all.

Provide Active Coaching

Identifying specific opportunities for development can challenge individuals to expand their skills. Even those who are doing well have room to become even better. Coproduction of new milestones that push beyond current comfort zones can acknowledge current achievements while encouraging continued growth—and make things personal. For example, encouraging an individual to apply to a national faculty development program, such as the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Academic Hospitalist Academy, could help them expand their skills and social network.

Offer Meaningful Feedback

Prioritizing feedback is essential for growth and peak performance. This can be particularly powerful when the observer moves beyond basic expectations to incorporate personal goals. Concrete feedback measured against individual potential then takes the place of nondescript compliments. For example, you could say: “Your teaching on systolic ejection murmurs was on target for the students. Next time I want to challenge you to broaden your teaching script to include points appropriate for more seasoned learners.” This feedback leaves them with a set of tailored “marching orders” to guide practice and improvement.

No matter where a person stands on the spectrum of performance, growth in medicine relies on deliberate practice, active coaching, meaningful feedback, and graduated opportunities. Even the most proficient among us can stagnate without these things. If we aren’t careful, this reputational inertia could amplify imposter syndrome, prevent individuals from achieving their full potential, and threaten faculty retention. Intentional work toward a growth mindset allows everyone to grow—and be seen.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Dear colleagues,

I’m excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – the last edition of 2020 features a fantastic line-up of articles! As the year comes to a close, we reflect on what has certainly been an interesting year, defined by a set of unique challenges we have faced as a nation and as a specialty.

AGA Institute

The fellowship recruitment season is one that has looked starkly different as interviews have converted to a virtual format. Dr. Wissam Khan, Dr. Nada Al Masalmeh, Dr. Stephanie Judd, and Dr. Diane Levine (Wayne State University) compile a helpful list of tips and tricks on proper interview etiquette in the new era of web-based interviews.

Financial planning in the face of a pandemic is a formidable task – Jonathan Tudor (Fidelity Investments) offers valuable advice for gastroenterologists on how to remain secure in your finances even in uncertain circumstances.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Yutaka Tomizawa (University of Washington), is a comprehensive piece elucidating the role of gastroenterologists in the management of gastric cancer. The article reviews the individual risk factors that exist for gastric cancer and provides guidance on how to stratify patients accordingly, which is critical in the ethnically diverse population of the United States.

Keeping a procedure log during fellowship can seem daunting and cumbersome, but it is important. Dr. Houman Rezaizadeh (University of Connecticut) shares his program’s experience with the AGA Procedure Log, a convenient online tracking tool, which can provide accurate and secure documentation of endoscopic procedures performed throughout fellowship.

Dr. Nazia Hasan (North Bay Health Care) and Dr. Allison Schulman (University of Michigan) broach an incredibly important topic: the paucity of women in interventional endoscopy. Dr. Hasan and Dr. Shulman candidly discuss the barriers women face in pursuing this subspecialty and offer practical solutions on how to approach these challenges – a piece that will surely resonate with many young gastroenterologists.

We wrap up our first year of TNG’s ethics series with two cases discussing the utilization of cannabis therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Dr. Jami Kinnucan (University of Michigan) and Dr. Arun Swaminath (Lenox Hill Hospital) systematically review existing data on the efficacy of cannabis use in IBD, the risks associated with therapy, and legal implications for both physicians and patients.

Also in this issue is a high-yield clinical review on the endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by Dr. Robert Moran and Dr. Joseph Elmunzer (Medical University of South Carolina). Dr. Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) teaches us about confounding – a critical concept to keep in mind when evaluating any manuscript. Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Mehul Lalani (US Digestive), reviews how quality measures and initiatives are tracked and implemented in private practice.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Dear colleagues,

I’m excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – the last edition of 2020 features a fantastic line-up of articles! As the year comes to a close, we reflect on what has certainly been an interesting year, defined by a set of unique challenges we have faced as a nation and as a specialty.

AGA Institute

The fellowship recruitment season is one that has looked starkly different as interviews have converted to a virtual format. Dr. Wissam Khan, Dr. Nada Al Masalmeh, Dr. Stephanie Judd, and Dr. Diane Levine (Wayne State University) compile a helpful list of tips and tricks on proper interview etiquette in the new era of web-based interviews.

Financial planning in the face of a pandemic is a formidable task – Jonathan Tudor (Fidelity Investments) offers valuable advice for gastroenterologists on how to remain secure in your finances even in uncertain circumstances.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Yutaka Tomizawa (University of Washington), is a comprehensive piece elucidating the role of gastroenterologists in the management of gastric cancer. The article reviews the individual risk factors that exist for gastric cancer and provides guidance on how to stratify patients accordingly, which is critical in the ethnically diverse population of the United States.

Keeping a procedure log during fellowship can seem daunting and cumbersome, but it is important. Dr. Houman Rezaizadeh (University of Connecticut) shares his program’s experience with the AGA Procedure Log, a convenient online tracking tool, which can provide accurate and secure documentation of endoscopic procedures performed throughout fellowship.

Dr. Nazia Hasan (North Bay Health Care) and Dr. Allison Schulman (University of Michigan) broach an incredibly important topic: the paucity of women in interventional endoscopy. Dr. Hasan and Dr. Shulman candidly discuss the barriers women face in pursuing this subspecialty and offer practical solutions on how to approach these challenges – a piece that will surely resonate with many young gastroenterologists.

We wrap up our first year of TNG’s ethics series with two cases discussing the utilization of cannabis therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Dr. Jami Kinnucan (University of Michigan) and Dr. Arun Swaminath (Lenox Hill Hospital) systematically review existing data on the efficacy of cannabis use in IBD, the risks associated with therapy, and legal implications for both physicians and patients.

Also in this issue is a high-yield clinical review on the endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by Dr. Robert Moran and Dr. Joseph Elmunzer (Medical University of South Carolina). Dr. Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) teaches us about confounding – a critical concept to keep in mind when evaluating any manuscript. Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Mehul Lalani (US Digestive), reviews how quality measures and initiatives are tracked and implemented in private practice.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Dear colleagues,

I’m excited to introduce the November issue of The New Gastroenterologist – the last edition of 2020 features a fantastic line-up of articles! As the year comes to a close, we reflect on what has certainly been an interesting year, defined by a set of unique challenges we have faced as a nation and as a specialty.

AGA Institute

The fellowship recruitment season is one that has looked starkly different as interviews have converted to a virtual format. Dr. Wissam Khan, Dr. Nada Al Masalmeh, Dr. Stephanie Judd, and Dr. Diane Levine (Wayne State University) compile a helpful list of tips and tricks on proper interview etiquette in the new era of web-based interviews.

Financial planning in the face of a pandemic is a formidable task – Jonathan Tudor (Fidelity Investments) offers valuable advice for gastroenterologists on how to remain secure in your finances even in uncertain circumstances.

This quarter’s “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Yutaka Tomizawa (University of Washington), is a comprehensive piece elucidating the role of gastroenterologists in the management of gastric cancer. The article reviews the individual risk factors that exist for gastric cancer and provides guidance on how to stratify patients accordingly, which is critical in the ethnically diverse population of the United States.

Keeping a procedure log during fellowship can seem daunting and cumbersome, but it is important. Dr. Houman Rezaizadeh (University of Connecticut) shares his program’s experience with the AGA Procedure Log, a convenient online tracking tool, which can provide accurate and secure documentation of endoscopic procedures performed throughout fellowship.

Dr. Nazia Hasan (North Bay Health Care) and Dr. Allison Schulman (University of Michigan) broach an incredibly important topic: the paucity of women in interventional endoscopy. Dr. Hasan and Dr. Shulman candidly discuss the barriers women face in pursuing this subspecialty and offer practical solutions on how to approach these challenges – a piece that will surely resonate with many young gastroenterologists.

We wrap up our first year of TNG’s ethics series with two cases discussing the utilization of cannabis therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Dr. Jami Kinnucan (University of Michigan) and Dr. Arun Swaminath (Lenox Hill Hospital) systematically review existing data on the efficacy of cannabis use in IBD, the risks associated with therapy, and legal implications for both physicians and patients.

Also in this issue is a high-yield clinical review on the endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections by Dr. Robert Moran and Dr. Joseph Elmunzer (Medical University of South Carolina). Dr. Manol Jovani (Johns Hopkins) teaches us about confounding – a critical concept to keep in mind when evaluating any manuscript. Lastly, our DHPA Private Practice Perspectives article, written by Dr. Mehul Lalani (US Digestive), reviews how quality measures and initiatives are tracked and implemented in private practice.

If you have interest in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
 

Stay well,

Vijaya L. Rao, MD
Editor in Chief
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Chicago, Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

Introduction

Although gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death in the world, the burden of gastric cancer in the United States tends to be underestimated relative to that of other cancers of the digestive system. In fact, the 5-year survival rate from gastric cancer remains poor (~32%)¹ in the United States, and this is largely because gastric cancers are not diagnosed at an early stage when curative therapeutic options are available. Cumulative epidemiologic data consistently demonstrate that the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States varies according to ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. It is important for practicing gastroenterologists in the United States to recognize individual risk profiles and identify people at higher risk for gastric cancer. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is an inherited form of diffuse-type gastric cancer and has pathogenic variants in the E-cadherin gene that are inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern. The lifetime risk of gastric cancer in individuals with HDGC is very high, and prophylactic total gastrectomy is usually advised. This article focuses on intestinal type cancer.

Epidemiology

Gastric cancer (proximal and distal gastric cancer combined) is the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide, with 1,033,701 new cases and 782,685 deaths in 2018.² Gastric cancer is subcategorized based on location (proximal [i.e., esophagogastric junctional, gastric cardia] and distal) and histology (intestinal and diffuse type), and each subtype is considered to have a distinct pathogenesis. Distal intestinal type gastric cancer is most commonly encountered in clinical practice. In this article, gastric cancer will signify distal intestinal type gastric cancer unless it is otherwise noted. In general, incidence rates are about twofold higher in men than in women. There is marked geographic variation in incidence rates, and the age-standardized incidence rates in eastern Asia (32.1 and 13.2, per 100,000) are approximately six times higher than those in northern America (5.6 and 2.8, per 100,000) in both men and women, respectively.² Recent studies evaluating global trends in the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer have demonstrated decreases worldwide.^3-5 However, the degree of decrease in the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer varies substantially across geographic regions, reflecting the heterogeneous distribution of risk profiles. A comprehensive analysis of a U.S. population registry demonstrated a linear decrease in the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States (0.94% decrease per year between 2001 and 2015),⁶ though the annual percent change in the gastric cancer mortality in the United States was lower (around 2% decrease per year between 1980 and 2011) than in other countries.³Several population-based studies conducted in the United States have demonstrated that the incidence of gastric cancer varied by ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin, and the highest incidence was observed among Asian immigrants.^7,8 A comprehensive meta-analysis examining the risk of gastric cancer in immigrants from high-incidence regions to low-incidence regions found a persistently higher risk of gastric cancer and related mortality among immigrants.⁹ These results indicate that there are important risk factors such as environmental and dietary factors in addition to the traditionally considered risk factors including male gender, age, family history, and tobacco use. A survey conducted in an ethnically and culturally diverse U.S. city showed that gastroenterology providers demonstrated knowledge deficiencies in identifying and managing patients with increased risk of gastric cancer.¹⁰ Recognizing individualized risk profiles in higher-risk groups (e.g., immigrants from higher-incidence/prevalence regions) is important for optimizing management of gastric cancer in the United States.
 

Assessment and management of modifiable risk factors

Helicobacter pylori, a group 1 carcinogen, is the most well-recognized risk factor for gastric cancer, particularly noncardia gastric cancer.¹¹ Since a landmark longitudinal follow-up study in Japan demonstrated that people with H. pylori infection are more likely to develop gastric cancer than those without H. pylori infection,¹² accumulating evidence largely from Asian countries has shown that eradication of H. pylori is associated with a reduced incidence of gastric cancer regardless of baseline risk.¹³ There are also data on the protective effect for gastric cancer of H. pylori eradication in asymptomatic individuals. Another meta-analysis of six international randomized control trials demonstrated a 34% relative risk reduction of gastric cancer occurrence in asymptomatic people (relative risk of developing gastric cancer was 0.66 in those who received eradication therapy compared with those with placebo or no treatment, 95% CI, 0.46-0.95).¹⁴ A U.S. practice guideline published after these meta-analyses recommends that all patients with a positive test indicating active infection with H. pylori should be offered treatment and testing to prove eradication,¹⁵ though the recommendation was not purely intended to reduce the gastric cancer risk in U.S. population. Subsequently, a Department of Veterans Affairs cohort study added valuable insights from a U.S. experience to the body of evidence from other countries with higher prevalence. In this study of more than 370,000 patients with a history of H. pylori infection, the detection and successful eradication of H. pylori was associated with a 76% lower incidence of gastric cancer compared with people without H. pylori treatment.¹⁶ This study also provided insight into H. pylori treatment practice patterns. Of patients with a positive H. pylori test result (stool antigen, urea breath test, or pathology), approximately 75% were prescribed an eradication regimen and only 21% of those underwent eradication tests. A low rate (24%) of eradication testing was subsequently reported by the same group among U.S. patients regardless of gastric cancer risk profiles.¹⁷ The lesson from the aforementioned study is that treatment and eradication of H. pylori even among asymptomatic U.S. patients reduces the risk of subsequent gastric cancer. However, it may be difficult to generalize the results of this study given the nature of the Veterans Affairs cohort, and more data are required to justify the implementation of nationwide preventive H. pylori screening in the general U.S. population.

Who should we consider high risk and offer screening EGD?

With available evidence to date, screening for gastric cancer in a general U.S. population is not recommended. However, it is important to acknowledge the aforementioned varying incidence of gastric cancer in the United States among ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. Immigrants from high-incidence regions maintain a higher risk of gastric cancer and related mortality even after migration to lower-incidence regions. The latter comprehensive study estimated that as many as 12.7 million people (29.4% of total U.S. immigrant population) have emigrated from higher-incidence regions including East Asian and some Central American countries.⁹ Indeed, an opportunistic nationwide gastric cancer screening program has been implemented in South Korea (beginning at age 40, biannually)²³ and Japan (beginning at age 50, biannually).²⁴ Two decision-analytic simulation studies have provided insight into the uncertainty about the cost effectiveness for potential targeted gastric cancer screening in higher-risk populations in the United States. One study demonstrated that esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening for otherwise asymptomatic Asian American people (as well as Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks) at the time of screening colonoscopy at 50 years of age with continued endoscopic surveillance every 3 years was cost effective, only if gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) or more advanced lesions were diagnosed at the index screening EGD.²⁵ Previous studies analyzing the cost effectiveness for gastric cancer screening in the United States had the limitation of not stratifying according to race or ethnicity, or accounting for patients diagnosed with GIM. Subsequently, the same research group extended this model analysis and has published additional findings that this strategy is cost effective for each of the most prevalent Asian American ethnicities (Chinese, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese Americans) in the United States irrespective of sex.²⁶ Although the authors raised a limitation that additional risk factors such as family history, tobacco use, or persistent H. pylori infection were not considered in the model because data regarding differentiated noncardia gastric cancer risk among Asian American ethnicities based on these risk factors are not available.

Practical consideration when we perform EGD for early gastric cancer screening

Identification of higher-risk patients should alert an endoscopist to observe mucosa with greater care with a lower threshold to biopsy any suspicious lesions. Preprocedural risk stratification for each individual before performing diagnostic EGD will improve early gastric cancer detection. While we perform EGD, detecting precursor lesions (atrophic gastritis and GIM) is as important as diagnosing an early gastric cancer. Screening and management of patients with precursor lesions (i.e., atrophic gastritis and GIM) is beyond the scope of this article, and this was published in a previous issue of the New Gastroenterologist. It is important to first grossly survey the entire gastric mucosa using high-definition while light (HDWL) endoscopy and screen for any focal irregular (raised or depressed) mucosal lesions. These lesions are often erythematous and should be examined carefully. Use of mucolytic and/or deforming agents (e.g., N-acetylcysteine or simethicone) is recommended for the improvement of visual clarity of gastric mucosa.³¹ Simethicone is widely used in the United States for colonoscopy and should also be available at the time of EGD for better gastric mucosal visibility. If irregular mucosal lesions are noted, this area should also be examined under narrowband imaging (NBI) in addition to HDWL. According to a simplified classification consisting of mucosal and vascular irregularity, NBI provides better mucosal surface morphology for diagnosis of early gastric cancer compared with HDWL, and a thorough examination of the surface characteristics is a prerequisite.³² This classification was further validated in a randomized control trial, and NBI increased sensitivity for the diagnosis of neoplasia compared with HDWL (92 % vs. 74 %).³³ The majority of institutions in the United States have a newer-generation NBI (Olympus America, EVIS EXERA III video system, GIF-HQ190), which provides brighter endoscopic images to better characterize gastric neoplastic lesions. Once we recognize an area suspicious for neoplasia, we should describe the macroscopic features according to a classification system.

Conclusion

As summarized above, cumulative epidemiologic data consistently demonstrate that the incidence of gastric cancer in the U.S. varies according to ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. New gastroenterologists will need to recognize individual risk profiles and identify people at higher risk for gastric cancer. Risk stratification before performing endoscopic evaluation will improve early gastric cancer detection and make noninvasive, effective therapies an option.

References

1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer statistics. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html.

2. Bray F et al. Ca Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394-424.

3. Ferro A et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1330-44.

4. Luo G et al. Int J Cancer. 2017;141:1333-44.

5. Arnold M et al. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1164-87.

6. Thrift AP, El-Serag HB. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:534-42.

7. Kim Y et al. Epidemiol Health. 2015;37:e2015066.

8. Kamineni A et al. Cancer Causes Control. 1999;10:77-83.

9. Pabla BS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:347-59.

10. Shah SC et al. Knowledge Gaps among Physicians Caring for Multiethnic Populations at Increased Gastric Cancer Risk. Gut Liver. 2018 Jan 15;12(1):38-45.

11. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. IARC. July 7, 2019. 12. Uemura N et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:784-9.

13. Lee YC et al. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:1113-24.

14. Ford AC et al. BMJ. 2014;348:g3174.

15. Chey W et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:212-39.

16. Kumar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:527-36.

17. Kumar S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr 6;S1542-3565(20)30436-5.

18. González CA et al. Int J Cancer. 2003;107:629-34.

19. Ladeiras-Lopes R et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19:689-701.

20. Cavaleiro-Pinto M et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22:375-87.

21. Lauby-Secretan B et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:794-8.

22. Choi IJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:427-36.

23. Kim BJ et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:736-41.

24. Hamashima C. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018;48:278–86.

25. Saumoy M et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:648-60.

26. Shah SC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul 21:S1542-3565(20)30993-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031.

27. Brinton LA et al. Br J Cancer. 1989;59:810-3.

28. Hsing AW et al. Cancer. 1993;71:745-50.

29. Schafer LW et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1985;60:444-8.

30. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:1-8.

31. Chiu PWY et al. Gut. 2019;68:186-97.

32. Pimentel-Nunes P et al. Endoscopy. 2012;44:236-46.

33. Pimentel-Nunes P et al. Endoscopy. 2016;48:723-30.

34. Participants in the Paris Workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:S3-43.

35. Draganov PV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:16-25.

36. Ngamruengphong S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 18;S1542-3565(20)30834-X. Online ahead of print.

37. Choi IJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1085-95.

Dr. Tomizawa is a clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle.

Introduction

Although gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death in the world, the burden of gastric cancer in the United States tends to be underestimated relative to that of other cancers of the digestive system. In fact, the 5-year survival rate from gastric cancer remains poor (~32%)¹ in the United States, and this is largely because gastric cancers are not diagnosed at an early stage when curative therapeutic options are available. Cumulative epidemiologic data consistently demonstrate that the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States varies according to ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. It is important for practicing gastroenterologists in the United States to recognize individual risk profiles and identify people at higher risk for gastric cancer. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is an inherited form of diffuse-type gastric cancer and has pathogenic variants in the E-cadherin gene that are inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern. The lifetime risk of gastric cancer in individuals with HDGC is very high, and prophylactic total gastrectomy is usually advised. This article focuses on intestinal type cancer.

Epidemiology

Gastric cancer (proximal and distal gastric cancer combined) is the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide, with 1,033,701 new cases and 782,685 deaths in 2018.² Gastric cancer is subcategorized based on location (proximal [i.e., esophagogastric junctional, gastric cardia] and distal) and histology (intestinal and diffuse type), and each subtype is considered to have a distinct pathogenesis. Distal intestinal type gastric cancer is most commonly encountered in clinical practice. In this article, gastric cancer will signify distal intestinal type gastric cancer unless it is otherwise noted. In general, incidence rates are about twofold higher in men than in women. There is marked geographic variation in incidence rates, and the age-standardized incidence rates in eastern Asia (32.1 and 13.2, per 100,000) are approximately six times higher than those in northern America (5.6 and 2.8, per 100,000) in both men and women, respectively.² Recent studies evaluating global trends in the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer have demonstrated decreases worldwide.^3-5 However, the degree of decrease in the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer varies substantially across geographic regions, reflecting the heterogeneous distribution of risk profiles. A comprehensive analysis of a U.S. population registry demonstrated a linear decrease in the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States (0.94% decrease per year between 2001 and 2015),⁶ though the annual percent change in the gastric cancer mortality in the United States was lower (around 2% decrease per year between 1980 and 2011) than in other countries.³Several population-based studies conducted in the United States have demonstrated that the incidence of gastric cancer varied by ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin, and the highest incidence was observed among Asian immigrants.^7,8 A comprehensive meta-analysis examining the risk of gastric cancer in immigrants from high-incidence regions to low-incidence regions found a persistently higher risk of gastric cancer and related mortality among immigrants.⁹ These results indicate that there are important risk factors such as environmental and dietary factors in addition to the traditionally considered risk factors including male gender, age, family history, and tobacco use. A survey conducted in an ethnically and culturally diverse U.S. city showed that gastroenterology providers demonstrated knowledge deficiencies in identifying and managing patients with increased risk of gastric cancer.¹⁰ Recognizing individualized risk profiles in higher-risk groups (e.g., immigrants from higher-incidence/prevalence regions) is important for optimizing management of gastric cancer in the United States.
 

Assessment and management of modifiable risk factors

Helicobacter pylori, a group 1 carcinogen, is the most well-recognized risk factor for gastric cancer, particularly noncardia gastric cancer.¹¹ Since a landmark longitudinal follow-up study in Japan demonstrated that people with H. pylori infection are more likely to develop gastric cancer than those without H. pylori infection,¹² accumulating evidence largely from Asian countries has shown that eradication of H. pylori is associated with a reduced incidence of gastric cancer regardless of baseline risk.¹³ There are also data on the protective effect for gastric cancer of H. pylori eradication in asymptomatic individuals. Another meta-analysis of six international randomized control trials demonstrated a 34% relative risk reduction of gastric cancer occurrence in asymptomatic people (relative risk of developing gastric cancer was 0.66 in those who received eradication therapy compared with those with placebo or no treatment, 95% CI, 0.46-0.95).¹⁴ A U.S. practice guideline published after these meta-analyses recommends that all patients with a positive test indicating active infection with H. pylori should be offered treatment and testing to prove eradication,¹⁵ though the recommendation was not purely intended to reduce the gastric cancer risk in U.S. population. Subsequently, a Department of Veterans Affairs cohort study added valuable insights from a U.S. experience to the body of evidence from other countries with higher prevalence. In this study of more than 370,000 patients with a history of H. pylori infection, the detection and successful eradication of H. pylori was associated with a 76% lower incidence of gastric cancer compared with people without H. pylori treatment.¹⁶ This study also provided insight into H. pylori treatment practice patterns. Of patients with a positive H. pylori test result (stool antigen, urea breath test, or pathology), approximately 75% were prescribed an eradication regimen and only 21% of those underwent eradication tests. A low rate (24%) of eradication testing was subsequently reported by the same group among U.S. patients regardless of gastric cancer risk profiles.¹⁷ The lesson from the aforementioned study is that treatment and eradication of H. pylori even among asymptomatic U.S. patients reduces the risk of subsequent gastric cancer. However, it may be difficult to generalize the results of this study given the nature of the Veterans Affairs cohort, and more data are required to justify the implementation of nationwide preventive H. pylori screening in the general U.S. population.

Who should we consider high risk and offer screening EGD?

With available evidence to date, screening for gastric cancer in a general U.S. population is not recommended. However, it is important to acknowledge the aforementioned varying incidence of gastric cancer in the United States among ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. Immigrants from high-incidence regions maintain a higher risk of gastric cancer and related mortality even after migration to lower-incidence regions. The latter comprehensive study estimated that as many as 12.7 million people (29.4% of total U.S. immigrant population) have emigrated from higher-incidence regions including East Asian and some Central American countries.⁹ Indeed, an opportunistic nationwide gastric cancer screening program has been implemented in South Korea (beginning at age 40, biannually)²³ and Japan (beginning at age 50, biannually).²⁴ Two decision-analytic simulation studies have provided insight into the uncertainty about the cost effectiveness for potential targeted gastric cancer screening in higher-risk populations in the United States. One study demonstrated that esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening for otherwise asymptomatic Asian American people (as well as Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks) at the time of screening colonoscopy at 50 years of age with continued endoscopic surveillance every 3 years was cost effective, only if gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) or more advanced lesions were diagnosed at the index screening EGD.²⁵ Previous studies analyzing the cost effectiveness for gastric cancer screening in the United States had the limitation of not stratifying according to race or ethnicity, or accounting for patients diagnosed with GIM. Subsequently, the same research group extended this model analysis and has published additional findings that this strategy is cost effective for each of the most prevalent Asian American ethnicities (Chinese, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese Americans) in the United States irrespective of sex.²⁶ Although the authors raised a limitation that additional risk factors such as family history, tobacco use, or persistent H. pylori infection were not considered in the model because data regarding differentiated noncardia gastric cancer risk among Asian American ethnicities based on these risk factors are not available.

Practical consideration when we perform EGD for early gastric cancer screening

Identification of higher-risk patients should alert an endoscopist to observe mucosa with greater care with a lower threshold to biopsy any suspicious lesions. Preprocedural risk stratification for each individual before performing diagnostic EGD will improve early gastric cancer detection. While we perform EGD, detecting precursor lesions (atrophic gastritis and GIM) is as important as diagnosing an early gastric cancer. Screening and management of patients with precursor lesions (i.e., atrophic gastritis and GIM) is beyond the scope of this article, and this was published in a previous issue of the New Gastroenterologist. It is important to first grossly survey the entire gastric mucosa using high-definition while light (HDWL) endoscopy and screen for any focal irregular (raised or depressed) mucosal lesions. These lesions are often erythematous and should be examined carefully. Use of mucolytic and/or deforming agents (e.g., N-acetylcysteine or simethicone) is recommended for the improvement of visual clarity of gastric mucosa.³¹ Simethicone is widely used in the United States for colonoscopy and should also be available at the time of EGD for better gastric mucosal visibility. If irregular mucosal lesions are noted, this area should also be examined under narrowband imaging (NBI) in addition to HDWL. According to a simplified classification consisting of mucosal and vascular irregularity, NBI provides better mucosal surface morphology for diagnosis of early gastric cancer compared with HDWL, and a thorough examination of the surface characteristics is a prerequisite.³² This classification was further validated in a randomized control trial, and NBI increased sensitivity for the diagnosis of neoplasia compared with HDWL (92 % vs. 74 %).³³ The majority of institutions in the United States have a newer-generation NBI (Olympus America, EVIS EXERA III video system, GIF-HQ190), which provides brighter endoscopic images to better characterize gastric neoplastic lesions. Once we recognize an area suspicious for neoplasia, we should describe the macroscopic features according to a classification system.

Conclusion

As summarized above, cumulative epidemiologic data consistently demonstrate that the incidence of gastric cancer in the U.S. varies according to ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. New gastroenterologists will need to recognize individual risk profiles and identify people at higher risk for gastric cancer. Risk stratification before performing endoscopic evaluation will improve early gastric cancer detection and make noninvasive, effective therapies an option.

References

1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer statistics. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html.

2. Bray F et al. Ca Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394-424.

3. Ferro A et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1330-44.

4. Luo G et al. Int J Cancer. 2017;141:1333-44.

5. Arnold M et al. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1164-87.

6. Thrift AP, El-Serag HB. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:534-42.

7. Kim Y et al. Epidemiol Health. 2015;37:e2015066.

8. Kamineni A et al. Cancer Causes Control. 1999;10:77-83.

9. Pabla BS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:347-59.

10. Shah SC et al. Knowledge Gaps among Physicians Caring for Multiethnic Populations at Increased Gastric Cancer Risk. Gut Liver. 2018 Jan 15;12(1):38-45.

11. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. IARC. July 7, 2019. 12. Uemura N et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:784-9.

13. Lee YC et al. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:1113-24.

14. Ford AC et al. BMJ. 2014;348:g3174.

15. Chey W et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:212-39.

16. Kumar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:527-36.

17. Kumar S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr 6;S1542-3565(20)30436-5.

18. González CA et al. Int J Cancer. 2003;107:629-34.

19. Ladeiras-Lopes R et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19:689-701.

20. Cavaleiro-Pinto M et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22:375-87.

21. Lauby-Secretan B et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:794-8.

22. Choi IJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:427-36.

23. Kim BJ et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:736-41.

24. Hamashima C. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018;48:278–86.

25. Saumoy M et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:648-60.

26. Shah SC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul 21:S1542-3565(20)30993-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031.

27. Brinton LA et al. Br J Cancer. 1989;59:810-3.

28. Hsing AW et al. Cancer. 1993;71:745-50.

29. Schafer LW et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1985;60:444-8.

30. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:1-8.

31. Chiu PWY et al. Gut. 2019;68:186-97.

32. Pimentel-Nunes P et al. Endoscopy. 2012;44:236-46.

33. Pimentel-Nunes P et al. Endoscopy. 2016;48:723-30.

34. Participants in the Paris Workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:S3-43.

35. Draganov PV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:16-25.

36. Ngamruengphong S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 18;S1542-3565(20)30834-X. Online ahead of print.

37. Choi IJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1085-95.

Dr. Tomizawa is a clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle.

Introduction

Although gastric cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death in the world, the burden of gastric cancer in the United States tends to be underestimated relative to that of other cancers of the digestive system. In fact, the 5-year survival rate from gastric cancer remains poor (~32%)¹ in the United States, and this is largely because gastric cancers are not diagnosed at an early stage when curative therapeutic options are available. Cumulative epidemiologic data consistently demonstrate that the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States varies according to ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. It is important for practicing gastroenterologists in the United States to recognize individual risk profiles and identify people at higher risk for gastric cancer. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is an inherited form of diffuse-type gastric cancer and has pathogenic variants in the E-cadherin gene that are inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern. The lifetime risk of gastric cancer in individuals with HDGC is very high, and prophylactic total gastrectomy is usually advised. This article focuses on intestinal type cancer.

Epidemiology

Gastric cancer (proximal and distal gastric cancer combined) is the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide, with 1,033,701 new cases and 782,685 deaths in 2018.² Gastric cancer is subcategorized based on location (proximal [i.e., esophagogastric junctional, gastric cardia] and distal) and histology (intestinal and diffuse type), and each subtype is considered to have a distinct pathogenesis. Distal intestinal type gastric cancer is most commonly encountered in clinical practice. In this article, gastric cancer will signify distal intestinal type gastric cancer unless it is otherwise noted. In general, incidence rates are about twofold higher in men than in women. There is marked geographic variation in incidence rates, and the age-standardized incidence rates in eastern Asia (32.1 and 13.2, per 100,000) are approximately six times higher than those in northern America (5.6 and 2.8, per 100,000) in both men and women, respectively.² Recent studies evaluating global trends in the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer have demonstrated decreases worldwide.^3-5 However, the degree of decrease in the incidence and mortality of gastric cancer varies substantially across geographic regions, reflecting the heterogeneous distribution of risk profiles. A comprehensive analysis of a U.S. population registry demonstrated a linear decrease in the incidence of gastric cancer in the United States (0.94% decrease per year between 2001 and 2015),⁶ though the annual percent change in the gastric cancer mortality in the United States was lower (around 2% decrease per year between 1980 and 2011) than in other countries.³Several population-based studies conducted in the United States have demonstrated that the incidence of gastric cancer varied by ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin, and the highest incidence was observed among Asian immigrants.^7,8 A comprehensive meta-analysis examining the risk of gastric cancer in immigrants from high-incidence regions to low-incidence regions found a persistently higher risk of gastric cancer and related mortality among immigrants.⁹ These results indicate that there are important risk factors such as environmental and dietary factors in addition to the traditionally considered risk factors including male gender, age, family history, and tobacco use. A survey conducted in an ethnically and culturally diverse U.S. city showed that gastroenterology providers demonstrated knowledge deficiencies in identifying and managing patients with increased risk of gastric cancer.¹⁰ Recognizing individualized risk profiles in higher-risk groups (e.g., immigrants from higher-incidence/prevalence regions) is important for optimizing management of gastric cancer in the United States.
 

Assessment and management of modifiable risk factors

Helicobacter pylori, a group 1 carcinogen, is the most well-recognized risk factor for gastric cancer, particularly noncardia gastric cancer.¹¹ Since a landmark longitudinal follow-up study in Japan demonstrated that people with H. pylori infection are more likely to develop gastric cancer than those without H. pylori infection,¹² accumulating evidence largely from Asian countries has shown that eradication of H. pylori is associated with a reduced incidence of gastric cancer regardless of baseline risk.¹³ There are also data on the protective effect for gastric cancer of H. pylori eradication in asymptomatic individuals. Another meta-analysis of six international randomized control trials demonstrated a 34% relative risk reduction of gastric cancer occurrence in asymptomatic people (relative risk of developing gastric cancer was 0.66 in those who received eradication therapy compared with those with placebo or no treatment, 95% CI, 0.46-0.95).¹⁴ A U.S. practice guideline published after these meta-analyses recommends that all patients with a positive test indicating active infection with H. pylori should be offered treatment and testing to prove eradication,¹⁵ though the recommendation was not purely intended to reduce the gastric cancer risk in U.S. population. Subsequently, a Department of Veterans Affairs cohort study added valuable insights from a U.S. experience to the body of evidence from other countries with higher prevalence. In this study of more than 370,000 patients with a history of H. pylori infection, the detection and successful eradication of H. pylori was associated with a 76% lower incidence of gastric cancer compared with people without H. pylori treatment.¹⁶ This study also provided insight into H. pylori treatment practice patterns. Of patients with a positive H. pylori test result (stool antigen, urea breath test, or pathology), approximately 75% were prescribed an eradication regimen and only 21% of those underwent eradication tests. A low rate (24%) of eradication testing was subsequently reported by the same group among U.S. patients regardless of gastric cancer risk profiles.¹⁷ The lesson from the aforementioned study is that treatment and eradication of H. pylori even among asymptomatic U.S. patients reduces the risk of subsequent gastric cancer. However, it may be difficult to generalize the results of this study given the nature of the Veterans Affairs cohort, and more data are required to justify the implementation of nationwide preventive H. pylori screening in the general U.S. population.

Who should we consider high risk and offer screening EGD?

With available evidence to date, screening for gastric cancer in a general U.S. population is not recommended. However, it is important to acknowledge the aforementioned varying incidence of gastric cancer in the United States among ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. Immigrants from high-incidence regions maintain a higher risk of gastric cancer and related mortality even after migration to lower-incidence regions. The latter comprehensive study estimated that as many as 12.7 million people (29.4% of total U.S. immigrant population) have emigrated from higher-incidence regions including East Asian and some Central American countries.⁹ Indeed, an opportunistic nationwide gastric cancer screening program has been implemented in South Korea (beginning at age 40, biannually)²³ and Japan (beginning at age 50, biannually).²⁴ Two decision-analytic simulation studies have provided insight into the uncertainty about the cost effectiveness for potential targeted gastric cancer screening in higher-risk populations in the United States. One study demonstrated that esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening for otherwise asymptomatic Asian American people (as well as Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks) at the time of screening colonoscopy at 50 years of age with continued endoscopic surveillance every 3 years was cost effective, only if gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) or more advanced lesions were diagnosed at the index screening EGD.²⁵ Previous studies analyzing the cost effectiveness for gastric cancer screening in the United States had the limitation of not stratifying according to race or ethnicity, or accounting for patients diagnosed with GIM. Subsequently, the same research group extended this model analysis and has published additional findings that this strategy is cost effective for each of the most prevalent Asian American ethnicities (Chinese, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese Americans) in the United States irrespective of sex.²⁶ Although the authors raised a limitation that additional risk factors such as family history, tobacco use, or persistent H. pylori infection were not considered in the model because data regarding differentiated noncardia gastric cancer risk among Asian American ethnicities based on these risk factors are not available.

Practical consideration when we perform EGD for early gastric cancer screening

Identification of higher-risk patients should alert an endoscopist to observe mucosa with greater care with a lower threshold to biopsy any suspicious lesions. Preprocedural risk stratification for each individual before performing diagnostic EGD will improve early gastric cancer detection. While we perform EGD, detecting precursor lesions (atrophic gastritis and GIM) is as important as diagnosing an early gastric cancer. Screening and management of patients with precursor lesions (i.e., atrophic gastritis and GIM) is beyond the scope of this article, and this was published in a previous issue of the New Gastroenterologist. It is important to first grossly survey the entire gastric mucosa using high-definition while light (HDWL) endoscopy and screen for any focal irregular (raised or depressed) mucosal lesions. These lesions are often erythematous and should be examined carefully. Use of mucolytic and/or deforming agents (e.g., N-acetylcysteine or simethicone) is recommended for the improvement of visual clarity of gastric mucosa.³¹ Simethicone is widely used in the United States for colonoscopy and should also be available at the time of EGD for better gastric mucosal visibility. If irregular mucosal lesions are noted, this area should also be examined under narrowband imaging (NBI) in addition to HDWL. According to a simplified classification consisting of mucosal and vascular irregularity, NBI provides better mucosal surface morphology for diagnosis of early gastric cancer compared with HDWL, and a thorough examination of the surface characteristics is a prerequisite.³² This classification was further validated in a randomized control trial, and NBI increased sensitivity for the diagnosis of neoplasia compared with HDWL (92 % vs. 74 %).³³ The majority of institutions in the United States have a newer-generation NBI (Olympus America, EVIS EXERA III video system, GIF-HQ190), which provides brighter endoscopic images to better characterize gastric neoplastic lesions. Once we recognize an area suspicious for neoplasia, we should describe the macroscopic features according to a classification system.

Conclusion

As summarized above, cumulative epidemiologic data consistently demonstrate that the incidence of gastric cancer in the U.S. varies according to ethnicity, immigrant status, and country of origin. New gastroenterologists will need to recognize individual risk profiles and identify people at higher risk for gastric cancer. Risk stratification before performing endoscopic evaluation will improve early gastric cancer detection and make noninvasive, effective therapies an option.

References

1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer statistics. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html.

2. Bray F et al. Ca Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394-424.

3. Ferro A et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1330-44.

4. Luo G et al. Int J Cancer. 2017;141:1333-44.

5. Arnold M et al. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1164-87.

6. Thrift AP, El-Serag HB. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:534-42.

7. Kim Y et al. Epidemiol Health. 2015;37:e2015066.

8. Kamineni A et al. Cancer Causes Control. 1999;10:77-83.

9. Pabla BS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:347-59.

10. Shah SC et al. Knowledge Gaps among Physicians Caring for Multiethnic Populations at Increased Gastric Cancer Risk. Gut Liver. 2018 Jan 15;12(1):38-45.

11. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. IARC. July 7, 2019. 12. Uemura N et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:784-9.

13. Lee YC et al. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:1113-24.

14. Ford AC et al. BMJ. 2014;348:g3174.

15. Chey W et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:212-39.

16. Kumar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:527-36.

17. Kumar S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr 6;S1542-3565(20)30436-5.

18. González CA et al. Int J Cancer. 2003;107:629-34.

19. Ladeiras-Lopes R et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19:689-701.

20. Cavaleiro-Pinto M et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22:375-87.

21. Lauby-Secretan B et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:794-8.

22. Choi IJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:427-36.

23. Kim BJ et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:736-41.

24. Hamashima C. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018;48:278–86.

25. Saumoy M et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:648-60.

26. Shah SC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul 21:S1542-3565(20)30993-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.031.

27. Brinton LA et al. Br J Cancer. 1989;59:810-3.

28. Hsing AW et al. Cancer. 1993;71:745-50.

29. Schafer LW et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 1985;60:444-8.

30. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:1-8.

31. Chiu PWY et al. Gut. 2019;68:186-97.

32. Pimentel-Nunes P et al. Endoscopy. 2012;44:236-46.

33. Pimentel-Nunes P et al. Endoscopy. 2016;48:723-30.

34. Participants in the Paris Workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:S3-43.

35. Draganov PV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:16-25.

36. Ngamruengphong S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun 18;S1542-3565(20)30834-X. Online ahead of print.

37. Choi IJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1085-95.

Dr. Tomizawa is a clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle.

When this editorial is published, we will know the results of the national election (hopefully) and whether there will be a smooth transition of power. We should know whether the Affordable Care Act will remain intact, and we will have indications about the impact of a COVID/flu combination. Health care will never be the same.

According to a recent Medscape survey, 62% of U.S. physicians saw a reduction of monthly income (12% saw a reduction of over 70%) in the first 6 months of this year. Almost a third of the physician workforce is contemplating retirement earlier than anticipated. As worrisome, according to a JAMA article (Aug 4, 2020;324:510-3) the United States saw a 35% increase in excess deaths because of non-COVID etiologies, an indication of health care deferral and avoidance. We all are scrambling to catch up and accommodate an enormous demand.

We are witnessing a “K” shaped recovery for both individuals and GI practices. If your health care is covered by Medicare, you own a mortgage-free home and your wealth is based on a balanced equity/bond portfolio, then all of your assets increased in value compared to last year’s peak valuations. For the other 90% of Americans, the recovery is modest, neutral, or more often nonexistent. Gastroenterologists who work in academic centers or large health systems did not lose income this year and were protected by billion-dollar credit lines and cash-on-hand accounts from robust days available to these entities. Independent practices (critically dependent on monthly cash flow) were decimated, furthering the trend towards consolidation, retirement, and acquisitions. With the new CMS E/M valuations we will see further reduction in procedural reimbursement.

Our postpandemic world will be dramatically different from pre-COVID times. However, disruption always precipitates innovation. Challenges are great but opportunities are clearly evident for those willing to risk.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

When this editorial is published, we will know the results of the national election (hopefully) and whether there will be a smooth transition of power. We should know whether the Affordable Care Act will remain intact, and we will have indications about the impact of a COVID/flu combination. Health care will never be the same.

According to a recent Medscape survey, 62% of U.S. physicians saw a reduction of monthly income (12% saw a reduction of over 70%) in the first 6 months of this year. Almost a third of the physician workforce is contemplating retirement earlier than anticipated. As worrisome, according to a JAMA article (Aug 4, 2020;324:510-3) the United States saw a 35% increase in excess deaths because of non-COVID etiologies, an indication of health care deferral and avoidance. We all are scrambling to catch up and accommodate an enormous demand.

We are witnessing a “K” shaped recovery for both individuals and GI practices. If your health care is covered by Medicare, you own a mortgage-free home and your wealth is based on a balanced equity/bond portfolio, then all of your assets increased in value compared to last year’s peak valuations. For the other 90% of Americans, the recovery is modest, neutral, or more often nonexistent. Gastroenterologists who work in academic centers or large health systems did not lose income this year and were protected by billion-dollar credit lines and cash-on-hand accounts from robust days available to these entities. Independent practices (critically dependent on monthly cash flow) were decimated, furthering the trend towards consolidation, retirement, and acquisitions. With the new CMS E/M valuations we will see further reduction in procedural reimbursement.

Our postpandemic world will be dramatically different from pre-COVID times. However, disruption always precipitates innovation. Challenges are great but opportunities are clearly evident for those willing to risk.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

When this editorial is published, we will know the results of the national election (hopefully) and whether there will be a smooth transition of power. We should know whether the Affordable Care Act will remain intact, and we will have indications about the impact of a COVID/flu combination. Health care will never be the same.

According to a recent Medscape survey, 62% of U.S. physicians saw a reduction of monthly income (12% saw a reduction of over 70%) in the first 6 months of this year. Almost a third of the physician workforce is contemplating retirement earlier than anticipated. As worrisome, according to a JAMA article (Aug 4, 2020;324:510-3) the United States saw a 35% increase in excess deaths because of non-COVID etiologies, an indication of health care deferral and avoidance. We all are scrambling to catch up and accommodate an enormous demand.

We are witnessing a “K” shaped recovery for both individuals and GI practices. If your health care is covered by Medicare, you own a mortgage-free home and your wealth is based on a balanced equity/bond portfolio, then all of your assets increased in value compared to last year’s peak valuations. For the other 90% of Americans, the recovery is modest, neutral, or more often nonexistent. Gastroenterologists who work in academic centers or large health systems did not lose income this year and were protected by billion-dollar credit lines and cash-on-hand accounts from robust days available to these entities. Independent practices (critically dependent on monthly cash flow) were decimated, furthering the trend towards consolidation, retirement, and acquisitions. With the new CMS E/M valuations we will see further reduction in procedural reimbursement.

Our postpandemic world will be dramatically different from pre-COVID times. However, disruption always precipitates innovation. Challenges are great but opportunities are clearly evident for those willing to risk.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief