A single dose of a new antibody-drug conjugate known as patritumab deruxtecan provoked a response in nearly one-third of patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative or triple-negative breast cancer, according to data presented from Abstract 1240 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) has previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity in phase I studies involving heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and various levels of HER3 protein expression, said Mafalda Oliveira, MD, of the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a combination of a monoclonal antibody chemically linked to a drug, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. ADCs work by binding to receptors or proteins and selectively delivering cytotoxic drugs to the site of a tumor.

Dr. Oliveira presented results from part B the of SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, a window-of-opportunity trial that evaluated the effect of a single dose of HER3-Dxd in patients with treatment-naive HR+/HER2– early breast cancer.

In such trials, patients receive one or more new compounds between the time of cancer diagnosis and standard treatment. Biological and clinical activity from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial were presented at last year’s ESMO Breast Cancer Congress, Dr. Oliveira said.

In the current study, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues recruited 37 women with HR+/HER2– early breast cancer, including 20 who were hormone receptor–positive and 17 who had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The age of the participants ranged from 30 to 81 years, with a median age of 51 years; 54% were premenopausal. The mean tumor size was 21 mm, with a range of 10-81 mm.

Distinct from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, part B included a subset of patients with TNBC to assess preliminary efficacy in this subtype, Dr. Oliveira noted.

All patients in part B received a single dose of 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd. The primary outcome was the variation in the tumor cellularity and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CelTIL) score at baseline and after 21 days via breast ultrasound.

At day 21, the total CelTIL score increased by a significant mean difference of 9.4 points after a single dose; the mean differences for TNBC and HR+/HER2– patients, were 17.9 points and 2.2 points, respectively, Dr. Oliveira said. The overall response rate was 32% (35% in TNBC patients and 30% in HR+/HER2– patients) and was significantly associated with the absolute change in CelTIL (area under the curve = 0.693; P = .049). 

In a subtype analysis, a statistically significant change in CelTIL was observed between paired samples overall (P = .046) and in TNBC (P = .016), but not in HR+ (P = .793).

Baseline levels of ERBB3 (also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor type 3, or HER3) were not associated with changes in CelTIL or in overall response rate.

HER3-DXd induced high expression of immune-related genes (such as PD1, CD8, and CD19), and suppressed proliferation-related genes, she said.

A total of 31 patients (84%) reported any adverse events. Of these, the most common were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting, and one patient experienced grade 3 treatment-related nausea. No interstitial lung disease events were reported during the study, and the incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity was lower with the lower dose in part B, compared with the 6.5 mg/kg dose used in part A, Dr. Oliveira noted.

To further validate the findings of the current study and assess the activity of HER3-DXd in early breast cancer, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues are conducting a neoadjuvant phase II trial known as SOLTI-2103 VALENTINE. In this study, they are testing six cycles of HER3-DXd at a 5.6 mg/kg dose in HR+/HER2– breast cancer patients, she said.

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Oliveira was asked whether CelTIL is the best endpoint for assessing HER3-DXd. Finding the best endpoint is always a challenge when conducting window-of-opportunity trials, she said. The CelTIL score has been correlated with pathologic complete response (pCR), as well as with disease-free survival and overall survival, she added.
 

ICARUS-BREAST01

In a presentation of Abstract 1890 during the same session, Barbari Pistilli, MD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, shared data from a phase II study known as ICARUS-BREAST.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

The study population included women with unresectable locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) who had undergone a median of two previous systemic therapies. In the current study, the patients underwent a median of eight cycles of HER3-DXd. The dosage was 5.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary outcome was overall response and disease progression after 3 months. Dr. Pistilli, who is also a coauthor of the research, provided data from 56 evaluable patients.

After 3 months, 16 patients (28.6%) showed a partial response, 30 patients showed stable disease (54%), and 10 (18%) showed disease progression. “No patients had a complete response,” Dr. Pistilli noted.

As for the safety profile, all patients reported at least one treatment-emergent event of any grade, but less than half (48.2%) were grade 3 or higher, and 12.5% led to treatment discontinuation. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events overall, and occurred in 89.3% and 76.8% of patients, respectively. All grade and grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in four patients and six patients, respectively; all grade and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia occurred in four patients and two patients, respectively, Dr. Pistilli said.

Data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were available for 31 patients, and the researchers reviewed CTC counts after the first HER3-DXd cycle.

“We found that the median number of CTCs decreased by one to two cell cycles of HER3-DXd,” said Dr. Pistilli. She and her coauthors found no substantial impact of the treatment on HER3 negative CTC counts, and “more importantly, no increase of HER3 negative CTC counts at disease progression,” Dr. Pistilli continued.

In addition, patients with higher HER+ CTC counts at baseline or a greater decrease in HER3+ CTC counts after one cycle of HER3-DXd were more likely to have an early treatment response, but this association was not statistically significant.

Looking ahead, further analysis will be performed to evaluate the association between HER3+ CTC counts and dynamics and the main outcomes of overall response rate and progression-free survival to determine the potential of HER3+ CTC counts to identify patients who can benefit from HER3-DXd, said Dr. Pistilli. The ICARUS-BREAST01 study is ongoing, and further efficacy and biomarker analysis will be presented, she added.

In the question-and-answer session, Dr. Pistilli was asked why she chose CTC as a measure.

Dr. Pistilli responded that she and her coauthors wanted to understand whether CTC could serve as a biomarker to help in patient selection.

Also, when asked about which genes might be upregulated and downregulated in responders vs. nonresponders, she noted that some genes related to DNA repair were involved in patients who were responders, but more research is needed.
 

Early results merit further exploration

Although patritumab deruxtecan is early in development, “there is a clear signal to expand,” based on preliminary research, said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, who served as discussant for the two studies.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

“There is no clear role for a specific subtype in both protein and gene expression,” noted Dr. Dent, who is a professor at Duke NUS Medical School, a collaboration between Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the National University of Singapore.

In the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, the small numbers make teasing out correlations a challenge, said Dr. Dent. However, changes were observed after just one cycle of the drug, and the upregulation of immune signature genes was reassuring, she said.

“A single dose of HER3-DXd induced an overall response of approximately 30% independently of hormone receptor status,” she emphasized, and the lower incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity with the lower dose is good news as well. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the results support moving forward with clinical development of HER3-DXd, she said.

The ICARUS-BREAST01 study researchers tried to show whether they could identify potential markers of early treatment response, and they examined CTCs and gene alterations, said Dr. Dent. “I think it is reassuring that despite these patients being heavily pretreated, HER-DXd seems to be active regardless of most frequent breast cancer genomic alterations,” she noted. Remaining questions include the need for more data on primary resistance.

“We are able to get these patients to respond, but what makes patients resistant to ADCs is just as important,” she said. “We see exciting data across all these subtypes,”

In Dr. Dent’s opinion, future research should focus on triple negative breast cancer, an opinion supported by the stronger response in this subset of patients in the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial. “I think you need to bring triple negative to the table,” she said.

The SOLTI TOT-HER3 study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Oliveira disclosed relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Daiichi Sankyo, iTEOS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, and Eisai. ICARUS-BREAST01 was sponsored by the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center and supported by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Pistilli disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Seagen, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Dent disclosed financial relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A single dose of a new antibody-drug conjugate known as patritumab deruxtecan provoked a response in nearly one-third of patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative or triple-negative breast cancer, according to data presented from Abstract 1240 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) has previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity in phase I studies involving heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and various levels of HER3 protein expression, said Mafalda Oliveira, MD, of the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a combination of a monoclonal antibody chemically linked to a drug, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. ADCs work by binding to receptors or proteins and selectively delivering cytotoxic drugs to the site of a tumor.

Dr. Oliveira presented results from part B the of SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, a window-of-opportunity trial that evaluated the effect of a single dose of HER3-Dxd in patients with treatment-naive HR+/HER2– early breast cancer.

In such trials, patients receive one or more new compounds between the time of cancer diagnosis and standard treatment. Biological and clinical activity from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial were presented at last year’s ESMO Breast Cancer Congress, Dr. Oliveira said.

In the current study, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues recruited 37 women with HR+/HER2– early breast cancer, including 20 who were hormone receptor–positive and 17 who had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The age of the participants ranged from 30 to 81 years, with a median age of 51 years; 54% were premenopausal. The mean tumor size was 21 mm, with a range of 10-81 mm.

Distinct from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, part B included a subset of patients with TNBC to assess preliminary efficacy in this subtype, Dr. Oliveira noted.

All patients in part B received a single dose of 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd. The primary outcome was the variation in the tumor cellularity and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CelTIL) score at baseline and after 21 days via breast ultrasound.

At day 21, the total CelTIL score increased by a significant mean difference of 9.4 points after a single dose; the mean differences for TNBC and HR+/HER2– patients, were 17.9 points and 2.2 points, respectively, Dr. Oliveira said. The overall response rate was 32% (35% in TNBC patients and 30% in HR+/HER2– patients) and was significantly associated with the absolute change in CelTIL (area under the curve = 0.693; P = .049). 

In a subtype analysis, a statistically significant change in CelTIL was observed between paired samples overall (P = .046) and in TNBC (P = .016), but not in HR+ (P = .793).

Baseline levels of ERBB3 (also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor type 3, or HER3) were not associated with changes in CelTIL or in overall response rate.

HER3-DXd induced high expression of immune-related genes (such as PD1, CD8, and CD19), and suppressed proliferation-related genes, she said.

A total of 31 patients (84%) reported any adverse events. Of these, the most common were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting, and one patient experienced grade 3 treatment-related nausea. No interstitial lung disease events were reported during the study, and the incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity was lower with the lower dose in part B, compared with the 6.5 mg/kg dose used in part A, Dr. Oliveira noted.

To further validate the findings of the current study and assess the activity of HER3-DXd in early breast cancer, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues are conducting a neoadjuvant phase II trial known as SOLTI-2103 VALENTINE. In this study, they are testing six cycles of HER3-DXd at a 5.6 mg/kg dose in HR+/HER2– breast cancer patients, she said.

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Oliveira was asked whether CelTIL is the best endpoint for assessing HER3-DXd. Finding the best endpoint is always a challenge when conducting window-of-opportunity trials, she said. The CelTIL score has been correlated with pathologic complete response (pCR), as well as with disease-free survival and overall survival, she added.
 

ICARUS-BREAST01

In a presentation of Abstract 1890 during the same session, Barbari Pistilli, MD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, shared data from a phase II study known as ICARUS-BREAST.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

The study population included women with unresectable locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) who had undergone a median of two previous systemic therapies. In the current study, the patients underwent a median of eight cycles of HER3-DXd. The dosage was 5.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary outcome was overall response and disease progression after 3 months. Dr. Pistilli, who is also a coauthor of the research, provided data from 56 evaluable patients.

After 3 months, 16 patients (28.6%) showed a partial response, 30 patients showed stable disease (54%), and 10 (18%) showed disease progression. “No patients had a complete response,” Dr. Pistilli noted.

As for the safety profile, all patients reported at least one treatment-emergent event of any grade, but less than half (48.2%) were grade 3 or higher, and 12.5% led to treatment discontinuation. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events overall, and occurred in 89.3% and 76.8% of patients, respectively. All grade and grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in four patients and six patients, respectively; all grade and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia occurred in four patients and two patients, respectively, Dr. Pistilli said.

Data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were available for 31 patients, and the researchers reviewed CTC counts after the first HER3-DXd cycle.

“We found that the median number of CTCs decreased by one to two cell cycles of HER3-DXd,” said Dr. Pistilli. She and her coauthors found no substantial impact of the treatment on HER3 negative CTC counts, and “more importantly, no increase of HER3 negative CTC counts at disease progression,” Dr. Pistilli continued.

In addition, patients with higher HER+ CTC counts at baseline or a greater decrease in HER3+ CTC counts after one cycle of HER3-DXd were more likely to have an early treatment response, but this association was not statistically significant.

Looking ahead, further analysis will be performed to evaluate the association between HER3+ CTC counts and dynamics and the main outcomes of overall response rate and progression-free survival to determine the potential of HER3+ CTC counts to identify patients who can benefit from HER3-DXd, said Dr. Pistilli. The ICARUS-BREAST01 study is ongoing, and further efficacy and biomarker analysis will be presented, she added.

In the question-and-answer session, Dr. Pistilli was asked why she chose CTC as a measure.

Dr. Pistilli responded that she and her coauthors wanted to understand whether CTC could serve as a biomarker to help in patient selection.

Also, when asked about which genes might be upregulated and downregulated in responders vs. nonresponders, she noted that some genes related to DNA repair were involved in patients who were responders, but more research is needed.
 

Early results merit further exploration

Although patritumab deruxtecan is early in development, “there is a clear signal to expand,” based on preliminary research, said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, who served as discussant for the two studies.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

“There is no clear role for a specific subtype in both protein and gene expression,” noted Dr. Dent, who is a professor at Duke NUS Medical School, a collaboration between Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the National University of Singapore.

In the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, the small numbers make teasing out correlations a challenge, said Dr. Dent. However, changes were observed after just one cycle of the drug, and the upregulation of immune signature genes was reassuring, she said.

“A single dose of HER3-DXd induced an overall response of approximately 30% independently of hormone receptor status,” she emphasized, and the lower incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity with the lower dose is good news as well. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the results support moving forward with clinical development of HER3-DXd, she said.

The ICARUS-BREAST01 study researchers tried to show whether they could identify potential markers of early treatment response, and they examined CTCs and gene alterations, said Dr. Dent. “I think it is reassuring that despite these patients being heavily pretreated, HER-DXd seems to be active regardless of most frequent breast cancer genomic alterations,” she noted. Remaining questions include the need for more data on primary resistance.

“We are able to get these patients to respond, but what makes patients resistant to ADCs is just as important,” she said. “We see exciting data across all these subtypes,”

In Dr. Dent’s opinion, future research should focus on triple negative breast cancer, an opinion supported by the stronger response in this subset of patients in the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial. “I think you need to bring triple negative to the table,” she said.

The SOLTI TOT-HER3 study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Oliveira disclosed relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Daiichi Sankyo, iTEOS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, and Eisai. ICARUS-BREAST01 was sponsored by the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center and supported by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Pistilli disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Seagen, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Dent disclosed financial relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A single dose of a new antibody-drug conjugate known as patritumab deruxtecan provoked a response in nearly one-third of patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative or triple-negative breast cancer, according to data presented from Abstract 1240 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) has previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity in phase I studies involving heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and various levels of HER3 protein expression, said Mafalda Oliveira, MD, of the Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a combination of a monoclonal antibody chemically linked to a drug, as defined by the National Cancer Institute. ADCs work by binding to receptors or proteins and selectively delivering cytotoxic drugs to the site of a tumor.

Dr. Oliveira presented results from part B the of SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, a window-of-opportunity trial that evaluated the effect of a single dose of HER3-Dxd in patients with treatment-naive HR+/HER2– early breast cancer.

In such trials, patients receive one or more new compounds between the time of cancer diagnosis and standard treatment. Biological and clinical activity from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial were presented at last year’s ESMO Breast Cancer Congress, Dr. Oliveira said.

In the current study, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues recruited 37 women with HR+/HER2– early breast cancer, including 20 who were hormone receptor–positive and 17 who had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The age of the participants ranged from 30 to 81 years, with a median age of 51 years; 54% were premenopausal. The mean tumor size was 21 mm, with a range of 10-81 mm.

Distinct from part A of the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, part B included a subset of patients with TNBC to assess preliminary efficacy in this subtype, Dr. Oliveira noted.

All patients in part B received a single dose of 5.6 mg/kg of HER3-DXd. The primary outcome was the variation in the tumor cellularity and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (CelTIL) score at baseline and after 21 days via breast ultrasound.

At day 21, the total CelTIL score increased by a significant mean difference of 9.4 points after a single dose; the mean differences for TNBC and HR+/HER2– patients, were 17.9 points and 2.2 points, respectively, Dr. Oliveira said. The overall response rate was 32% (35% in TNBC patients and 30% in HR+/HER2– patients) and was significantly associated with the absolute change in CelTIL (area under the curve = 0.693; P = .049). 

In a subtype analysis, a statistically significant change in CelTIL was observed between paired samples overall (P = .046) and in TNBC (P = .016), but not in HR+ (P = .793).

Baseline levels of ERBB3 (also known as human epidermal growth factor receptor type 3, or HER3) were not associated with changes in CelTIL or in overall response rate.

HER3-DXd induced high expression of immune-related genes (such as PD1, CD8, and CD19), and suppressed proliferation-related genes, she said.

A total of 31 patients (84%) reported any adverse events. Of these, the most common were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting, and one patient experienced grade 3 treatment-related nausea. No interstitial lung disease events were reported during the study, and the incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity was lower with the lower dose in part B, compared with the 6.5 mg/kg dose used in part A, Dr. Oliveira noted.

To further validate the findings of the current study and assess the activity of HER3-DXd in early breast cancer, Dr. Oliveira and colleagues are conducting a neoadjuvant phase II trial known as SOLTI-2103 VALENTINE. In this study, they are testing six cycles of HER3-DXd at a 5.6 mg/kg dose in HR+/HER2– breast cancer patients, she said.

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Oliveira was asked whether CelTIL is the best endpoint for assessing HER3-DXd. Finding the best endpoint is always a challenge when conducting window-of-opportunity trials, she said. The CelTIL score has been correlated with pathologic complete response (pCR), as well as with disease-free survival and overall survival, she added.
 

ICARUS-BREAST01

In a presentation of Abstract 1890 during the same session, Barbari Pistilli, MD, of Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, shared data from a phase II study known as ICARUS-BREAST.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

The study population included women with unresectable locally advanced breast cancer (ABC) who had undergone a median of two previous systemic therapies. In the current study, the patients underwent a median of eight cycles of HER3-DXd. The dosage was 5.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The primary outcome was overall response and disease progression after 3 months. Dr. Pistilli, who is also a coauthor of the research, provided data from 56 evaluable patients.

After 3 months, 16 patients (28.6%) showed a partial response, 30 patients showed stable disease (54%), and 10 (18%) showed disease progression. “No patients had a complete response,” Dr. Pistilli noted.

As for the safety profile, all patients reported at least one treatment-emergent event of any grade, but less than half (48.2%) were grade 3 or higher, and 12.5% led to treatment discontinuation. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequently reported adverse events overall, and occurred in 89.3% and 76.8% of patients, respectively. All grade and grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in four patients and six patients, respectively; all grade and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia occurred in four patients and two patients, respectively, Dr. Pistilli said.

Data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were available for 31 patients, and the researchers reviewed CTC counts after the first HER3-DXd cycle.

“We found that the median number of CTCs decreased by one to two cell cycles of HER3-DXd,” said Dr. Pistilli. She and her coauthors found no substantial impact of the treatment on HER3 negative CTC counts, and “more importantly, no increase of HER3 negative CTC counts at disease progression,” Dr. Pistilli continued.

In addition, patients with higher HER+ CTC counts at baseline or a greater decrease in HER3+ CTC counts after one cycle of HER3-DXd were more likely to have an early treatment response, but this association was not statistically significant.

Looking ahead, further analysis will be performed to evaluate the association between HER3+ CTC counts and dynamics and the main outcomes of overall response rate and progression-free survival to determine the potential of HER3+ CTC counts to identify patients who can benefit from HER3-DXd, said Dr. Pistilli. The ICARUS-BREAST01 study is ongoing, and further efficacy and biomarker analysis will be presented, she added.

In the question-and-answer session, Dr. Pistilli was asked why she chose CTC as a measure.

Dr. Pistilli responded that she and her coauthors wanted to understand whether CTC could serve as a biomarker to help in patient selection.

Also, when asked about which genes might be upregulated and downregulated in responders vs. nonresponders, she noted that some genes related to DNA repair were involved in patients who were responders, but more research is needed.
 

Early results merit further exploration

Although patritumab deruxtecan is early in development, “there is a clear signal to expand,” based on preliminary research, said Rebecca A. Dent, MD, who served as discussant for the two studies.

Heidi Splete/MDedge News

“There is no clear role for a specific subtype in both protein and gene expression,” noted Dr. Dent, who is a professor at Duke NUS Medical School, a collaboration between Duke University, Durham, N.C., and the National University of Singapore.

In the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial, the small numbers make teasing out correlations a challenge, said Dr. Dent. However, changes were observed after just one cycle of the drug, and the upregulation of immune signature genes was reassuring, she said.

“A single dose of HER3-DXd induced an overall response of approximately 30% independently of hormone receptor status,” she emphasized, and the lower incidence of hematological and hepatic toxicity with the lower dose is good news as well. The findings were limited by the small sample size, but the results support moving forward with clinical development of HER3-DXd, she said.

The ICARUS-BREAST01 study researchers tried to show whether they could identify potential markers of early treatment response, and they examined CTCs and gene alterations, said Dr. Dent. “I think it is reassuring that despite these patients being heavily pretreated, HER-DXd seems to be active regardless of most frequent breast cancer genomic alterations,” she noted. Remaining questions include the need for more data on primary resistance.

“We are able to get these patients to respond, but what makes patients resistant to ADCs is just as important,” she said. “We see exciting data across all these subtypes,”

In Dr. Dent’s opinion, future research should focus on triple negative breast cancer, an opinion supported by the stronger response in this subset of patients in the SOLTI TOT-HER3 trial. “I think you need to bring triple negative to the table,” she said.

The SOLTI TOT-HER3 study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Oliveira disclosed relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Zenith Epigenetics, Daiichi Sankyo, iTEOS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, and Eisai. ICARUS-BREAST01 was sponsored by the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center and supported by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Pistilli disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Seagen, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. Dr. Dent disclosed financial relationships with companies including AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer.

Photo: antoniodiaz/Shutterstock

Mendoza M, Bonacina E, Garcia-Manau P, et al. Aspirin discontinuation at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation in pregnancies at high risk of preterm preeclampsia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:542-550. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.0691.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Aspirin is, to date, the only proven preventative treatment to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in pregnancy. While aspirin initiation, optimally prior to 16 weeks, generally is accepted, the best timing for discontinuation remains uncertain due to conflicting data on risk of bleeding and different doses used. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a broad range of patients eligible for low-dose aspirin with continuation through delivery, citing data that support no increase in either maternal or fetal/neonatal complications, including bleeding complications.¹ Other guidelines recommend reduction in pregnancy exposure to aspirin with strict guidelines for which patients are considered “high risk” as well as discontinuation at 36 weeks prior to labor onset to reduce the risk of potential bleeding complications.

Recently, Mendoza and colleagues tested the hypothesis that, in patients at high risk for preterm preeclampsia (based on high-risk first-trimester screening followed by a low risk of preeclampsia at 24 to 28 weeks based on a normal sFlt-1:PlGF [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 to placental growth factor] ratio), discontinuing aspirin is noninferior in preventing preterm preeclampsia compared with continuing aspirin until 36 weeks.²

Details of the study

Mendoza and colleagues conducted a multicenter, open label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial that randomly assigned 968 participants prior to stopping recruitment based on the findings from a planned interim analysis.²

The patient population included women with singleton pregnancies between 24 and 28 weeks who had initiated aspirin 150 mg daily by 16 6/7 weeks due to high-risk first- trimester screening for preterm preeclampsia. Additionally, these patients also had an sFlt-1:PlGR ratio of 38 or less between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation, which prior studies have demonstrated to exclude the diagnosis of preeclampsia.

Patients were randomly assigned to either discontinue aspirin at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation (intervention group) or continue aspirin until 36 weeks’ gestation (control group). The primary outcome was delivery due to preeclampsia at less than 37 weeks, with secondary outcomes of preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks, preeclampsia at 37 or more weeks, or other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Results. For the primary outcome (936 participants’ data analyzed), the incidence of preeclampsia at less than 37 weeks was 1.48% in the intervention group and 1.73% in the control group (absolute difference, -0.25%, which meets study criteria for noninferiority).

No difference occurred in the secondary outcomes of adverse outcomes at less than 34 weeks or at less than 37 weeks. While there was no difference in the incidence of the individual adverse outcomes at 37 or more weeks, the intervention group had a decrease in the incidence of having “any” adverse outcome (-5.04%) as well as a decrease in minor antepartum hemorrhage (nose and/or gum bleeding) (-4.7%).

The authors therefore concluded that aspirin discontinuation at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation in pregnant patients at high risk for preterm preeclampsia and a normal sFlt-1:PlGF ratio is noninferior to aspirin continuation for prevention of preterm preeclampsia. They also suggested that this discontinuation may reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes at 37 or more weeks as well as minor bleeding complications.

Study strengths and limitations

The authors cited the novelty of this study at considering using aspirin for the prevention of preterm preeclampsia in a specific patient group for the shortest amount of time needed to achieve this goal. Potential benefits could be decreased bleeding complications, cost, anxiety, and visits.

They also noted the following study limitations: open-label design, a predominantly White patient population, early termination due to the interim analysis, inadequate power for more rare complications, and a query as to the appropriate choice for the threshold for noninferiority. Noninferiority trials have inherent weaknesses as a group that should be considered before major practice changes occur as a result of their findings.

Several other factors in the study limit the generalizability of the authors’ recommendations, especially to patient populations in the United States. For example, the study used an aspirin dose of 150 mg daily, which is almost double the dose recommended in the United States (81 mg). The reasoning for this was that doses higher than 100 mg have been shown to be the most effective for preeclampsia prevention but also may have higher rates of bleeding complications, including placental abruption. The demonstrated increase in complications may not hold at a lower dose.

Additionally, patients in this study were selected for aspirin by a first-trimester algorithm that may not be in general use everywhere (and differs from the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for low-dose aspirin use in pregnancy). Finally, although extremely interesting, the use of the sFlt-1:PlFG ratio at 24 to 28 weeks is not in widespread use in the United States and may incur an additional cost not equivalent to the low cost of a daily aspirin.

Essentially, this is an extremely limited study for a very specific population. Before globally discontinuing low-dose aspirin in high-risk patients, the different doses and eligibility criteria should be studied for effect of early discontinuation. ●

Photo: antoniodiaz/Shutterstock

Mendoza M, Bonacina E, Garcia-Manau P, et al. Aspirin discontinuation at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation in pregnancies at high risk of preterm preeclampsia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:542-550. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.0691.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Aspirin is, to date, the only proven preventative treatment to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in pregnancy. While aspirin initiation, optimally prior to 16 weeks, generally is accepted, the best timing for discontinuation remains uncertain due to conflicting data on risk of bleeding and different doses used. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a broad range of patients eligible for low-dose aspirin with continuation through delivery, citing data that support no increase in either maternal or fetal/neonatal complications, including bleeding complications.¹ Other guidelines recommend reduction in pregnancy exposure to aspirin with strict guidelines for which patients are considered “high risk” as well as discontinuation at 36 weeks prior to labor onset to reduce the risk of potential bleeding complications.

Recently, Mendoza and colleagues tested the hypothesis that, in patients at high risk for preterm preeclampsia (based on high-risk first-trimester screening followed by a low risk of preeclampsia at 24 to 28 weeks based on a normal sFlt-1:PlGF [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 to placental growth factor] ratio), discontinuing aspirin is noninferior in preventing preterm preeclampsia compared with continuing aspirin until 36 weeks.²

Details of the study

Mendoza and colleagues conducted a multicenter, open label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial that randomly assigned 968 participants prior to stopping recruitment based on the findings from a planned interim analysis.²

The patient population included women with singleton pregnancies between 24 and 28 weeks who had initiated aspirin 150 mg daily by 16 6/7 weeks due to high-risk first- trimester screening for preterm preeclampsia. Additionally, these patients also had an sFlt-1:PlGR ratio of 38 or less between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation, which prior studies have demonstrated to exclude the diagnosis of preeclampsia.

Patients were randomly assigned to either discontinue aspirin at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation (intervention group) or continue aspirin until 36 weeks’ gestation (control group). The primary outcome was delivery due to preeclampsia at less than 37 weeks, with secondary outcomes of preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks, preeclampsia at 37 or more weeks, or other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Results. For the primary outcome (936 participants’ data analyzed), the incidence of preeclampsia at less than 37 weeks was 1.48% in the intervention group and 1.73% in the control group (absolute difference, -0.25%, which meets study criteria for noninferiority).

No difference occurred in the secondary outcomes of adverse outcomes at less than 34 weeks or at less than 37 weeks. While there was no difference in the incidence of the individual adverse outcomes at 37 or more weeks, the intervention group had a decrease in the incidence of having “any” adverse outcome (-5.04%) as well as a decrease in minor antepartum hemorrhage (nose and/or gum bleeding) (-4.7%).

The authors therefore concluded that aspirin discontinuation at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation in pregnant patients at high risk for preterm preeclampsia and a normal sFlt-1:PlGF ratio is noninferior to aspirin continuation for prevention of preterm preeclampsia. They also suggested that this discontinuation may reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes at 37 or more weeks as well as minor bleeding complications.

Study strengths and limitations

The authors cited the novelty of this study at considering using aspirin for the prevention of preterm preeclampsia in a specific patient group for the shortest amount of time needed to achieve this goal. Potential benefits could be decreased bleeding complications, cost, anxiety, and visits.

They also noted the following study limitations: open-label design, a predominantly White patient population, early termination due to the interim analysis, inadequate power for more rare complications, and a query as to the appropriate choice for the threshold for noninferiority. Noninferiority trials have inherent weaknesses as a group that should be considered before major practice changes occur as a result of their findings.

Several other factors in the study limit the generalizability of the authors’ recommendations, especially to patient populations in the United States. For example, the study used an aspirin dose of 150 mg daily, which is almost double the dose recommended in the United States (81 mg). The reasoning for this was that doses higher than 100 mg have been shown to be the most effective for preeclampsia prevention but also may have higher rates of bleeding complications, including placental abruption. The demonstrated increase in complications may not hold at a lower dose.

Additionally, patients in this study were selected for aspirin by a first-trimester algorithm that may not be in general use everywhere (and differs from the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for low-dose aspirin use in pregnancy). Finally, although extremely interesting, the use of the sFlt-1:PlFG ratio at 24 to 28 weeks is not in widespread use in the United States and may incur an additional cost not equivalent to the low cost of a daily aspirin.

Essentially, this is an extremely limited study for a very specific population. Before globally discontinuing low-dose aspirin in high-risk patients, the different doses and eligibility criteria should be studied for effect of early discontinuation. ●

Photo: antoniodiaz/Shutterstock

Mendoza M, Bonacina E, Garcia-Manau P, et al. Aspirin discontinuation at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation in pregnancies at high risk of preterm preeclampsia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;329:542-550. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.0691.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Aspirin is, to date, the only proven preventative treatment to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in pregnancy. While aspirin initiation, optimally prior to 16 weeks, generally is accepted, the best timing for discontinuation remains uncertain due to conflicting data on risk of bleeding and different doses used. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends a broad range of patients eligible for low-dose aspirin with continuation through delivery, citing data that support no increase in either maternal or fetal/neonatal complications, including bleeding complications.¹ Other guidelines recommend reduction in pregnancy exposure to aspirin with strict guidelines for which patients are considered “high risk” as well as discontinuation at 36 weeks prior to labor onset to reduce the risk of potential bleeding complications.

Recently, Mendoza and colleagues tested the hypothesis that, in patients at high risk for preterm preeclampsia (based on high-risk first-trimester screening followed by a low risk of preeclampsia at 24 to 28 weeks based on a normal sFlt-1:PlGF [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 to placental growth factor] ratio), discontinuing aspirin is noninferior in preventing preterm preeclampsia compared with continuing aspirin until 36 weeks.²

Details of the study

Mendoza and colleagues conducted a multicenter, open label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial that randomly assigned 968 participants prior to stopping recruitment based on the findings from a planned interim analysis.²

The patient population included women with singleton pregnancies between 24 and 28 weeks who had initiated aspirin 150 mg daily by 16 6/7 weeks due to high-risk first- trimester screening for preterm preeclampsia. Additionally, these patients also had an sFlt-1:PlGR ratio of 38 or less between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation, which prior studies have demonstrated to exclude the diagnosis of preeclampsia.

Patients were randomly assigned to either discontinue aspirin at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation (intervention group) or continue aspirin until 36 weeks’ gestation (control group). The primary outcome was delivery due to preeclampsia at less than 37 weeks, with secondary outcomes of preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks, preeclampsia at 37 or more weeks, or other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Results. For the primary outcome (936 participants’ data analyzed), the incidence of preeclampsia at less than 37 weeks was 1.48% in the intervention group and 1.73% in the control group (absolute difference, -0.25%, which meets study criteria for noninferiority).

No difference occurred in the secondary outcomes of adverse outcomes at less than 34 weeks or at less than 37 weeks. While there was no difference in the incidence of the individual adverse outcomes at 37 or more weeks, the intervention group had a decrease in the incidence of having “any” adverse outcome (-5.04%) as well as a decrease in minor antepartum hemorrhage (nose and/or gum bleeding) (-4.7%).

The authors therefore concluded that aspirin discontinuation at 24 to 28 weeks’ gestation in pregnant patients at high risk for preterm preeclampsia and a normal sFlt-1:PlGF ratio is noninferior to aspirin continuation for prevention of preterm preeclampsia. They also suggested that this discontinuation may reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes at 37 or more weeks as well as minor bleeding complications.

Study strengths and limitations

The authors cited the novelty of this study at considering using aspirin for the prevention of preterm preeclampsia in a specific patient group for the shortest amount of time needed to achieve this goal. Potential benefits could be decreased bleeding complications, cost, anxiety, and visits.

They also noted the following study limitations: open-label design, a predominantly White patient population, early termination due to the interim analysis, inadequate power for more rare complications, and a query as to the appropriate choice for the threshold for noninferiority. Noninferiority trials have inherent weaknesses as a group that should be considered before major practice changes occur as a result of their findings.

Several other factors in the study limit the generalizability of the authors’ recommendations, especially to patient populations in the United States. For example, the study used an aspirin dose of 150 mg daily, which is almost double the dose recommended in the United States (81 mg). The reasoning for this was that doses higher than 100 mg have been shown to be the most effective for preeclampsia prevention but also may have higher rates of bleeding complications, including placental abruption. The demonstrated increase in complications may not hold at a lower dose.

Additionally, patients in this study were selected for aspirin by a first-trimester algorithm that may not be in general use everywhere (and differs from the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for low-dose aspirin use in pregnancy). Finally, although extremely interesting, the use of the sFlt-1:PlFG ratio at 24 to 28 weeks is not in widespread use in the United States and may incur an additional cost not equivalent to the low cost of a daily aspirin.

Essentially, this is an extremely limited study for a very specific population. Before globally discontinuing low-dose aspirin in high-risk patients, the different doses and eligibility criteria should be studied for effect of early discontinuation. ●

Cooley JJ, Maguire FB, Morris CR, et al. Cervical cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among women ≥65 years in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:91-97. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0793.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening cessation at age 65 once specific exit criteria are met. (According to the American Cancer Society, individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening.)¹ We know, however, that about one-fifth of all cervical cancer cases are diagnosed among individuals aged 65 or older, and for Black women that proportion is even higher when data are appropriately adjusted to account for the increased rate of hysterectomy among Black versus White women.^2-4

Early-stage cervical cancer is largely a curable disease with very high 5-year overall survival rates. Unfortunately, more than half of all cervical cancer is diagnosed at a more advanced stage, and survival rates are much lower for this population.⁵

Cervical cancer incidence rates plummeted in the United States after the introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening. However, the percentage of women who are not up to date with cervical cancer screening may now be increasing, from 14% in 2005 to 23% in 2019 according to one study from the US Preventive Services Task Force.⁶ When looking at cervical cancer screening rates by age, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the proportion of patients who have not been recently screened goes up as patients get older, with approximately 845,000 American women aged 61 to 65 not adequately screened in 2015 alone.⁷

Details of the study

Cooley and colleagues sought to better characterize the cohort of women diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later age, specifically the stage at diagnosis and survival.⁸ They used data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR), a large state-mandated, population-based data repository that is affiliated with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The researchers identified 12,442 womenin the CCR who were newly diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2009 to 2018, 17.4% of whom were age 65 or older. They looked at cancer stage at diagnosis as it relates to relative survival rate (“the ratio of the observed survival rate among those who have cancer divided by the expected survival rate for people of the same sex, race/ethnicity, and age who do not have cancer”), Charlson comorbidity score, socioeconomic status, health insurance status, urbanicity, and race/ethnicity.

Results. In this study, 71% of women aged 65 or older presented with advanced-stage disease (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stage II–IV) as compared with only 48% in those aged 21 to 64. Five-year relative survival rates also were lower in the older cohort—23% to 37%, compared with 42% to 52% in the younger patients. In a sensitivity analysis, late-stage disease was associated with older age, increasing medical comorbidities, and nonadenocarcinoma histology.

Interestingly, older women of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease when compared with non-Hispanic White women.

Study strengths and limitations

Although this study’s conclusions—that patients with advanced-stage cancer are more likely to do poorly than those with early-stage cancer—may seem obvious to some even without the proven data, it is still important to highlight what a clinician may intuit with data to support that intuition. It is particularly important to emphasize this risk in older women in light of the aging population in the United States, with adults older than age 65 expected to account for more than 20% of the nation’s population by 2030.⁹

The study by Cooley and colleagues adds value to the existing literature due to its large study population, which included more than 12,000 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer.⁸ And although its results may not be completely generalizable as the data were gathered from only a California-specific population, the sample was diverse with significant portions of Hispanic and Black patients. This study supports previous data that showed high rates of advanced cervical cancer in women older than age 65, with resultant worse 5-year relative survival in this population of older women specifically.⁴ ●

Cooley JJ, Maguire FB, Morris CR, et al. Cervical cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among women ≥65 years in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:91-97. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0793.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening cessation at age 65 once specific exit criteria are met. (According to the American Cancer Society, individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening.)¹ We know, however, that about one-fifth of all cervical cancer cases are diagnosed among individuals aged 65 or older, and for Black women that proportion is even higher when data are appropriately adjusted to account for the increased rate of hysterectomy among Black versus White women.^2-4

Early-stage cervical cancer is largely a curable disease with very high 5-year overall survival rates. Unfortunately, more than half of all cervical cancer is diagnosed at a more advanced stage, and survival rates are much lower for this population.⁵

Cervical cancer incidence rates plummeted in the United States after the introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening. However, the percentage of women who are not up to date with cervical cancer screening may now be increasing, from 14% in 2005 to 23% in 2019 according to one study from the US Preventive Services Task Force.⁶ When looking at cervical cancer screening rates by age, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the proportion of patients who have not been recently screened goes up as patients get older, with approximately 845,000 American women aged 61 to 65 not adequately screened in 2015 alone.⁷

Details of the study

Cooley and colleagues sought to better characterize the cohort of women diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later age, specifically the stage at diagnosis and survival.⁸ They used data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR), a large state-mandated, population-based data repository that is affiliated with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The researchers identified 12,442 womenin the CCR who were newly diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2009 to 2018, 17.4% of whom were age 65 or older. They looked at cancer stage at diagnosis as it relates to relative survival rate (“the ratio of the observed survival rate among those who have cancer divided by the expected survival rate for people of the same sex, race/ethnicity, and age who do not have cancer”), Charlson comorbidity score, socioeconomic status, health insurance status, urbanicity, and race/ethnicity.

Results. In this study, 71% of women aged 65 or older presented with advanced-stage disease (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stage II–IV) as compared with only 48% in those aged 21 to 64. Five-year relative survival rates also were lower in the older cohort—23% to 37%, compared with 42% to 52% in the younger patients. In a sensitivity analysis, late-stage disease was associated with older age, increasing medical comorbidities, and nonadenocarcinoma histology.

Interestingly, older women of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease when compared with non-Hispanic White women.

Study strengths and limitations

Although this study’s conclusions—that patients with advanced-stage cancer are more likely to do poorly than those with early-stage cancer—may seem obvious to some even without the proven data, it is still important to highlight what a clinician may intuit with data to support that intuition. It is particularly important to emphasize this risk in older women in light of the aging population in the United States, with adults older than age 65 expected to account for more than 20% of the nation’s population by 2030.⁹

The study by Cooley and colleagues adds value to the existing literature due to its large study population, which included more than 12,000 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer.⁸ And although its results may not be completely generalizable as the data were gathered from only a California-specific population, the sample was diverse with significant portions of Hispanic and Black patients. This study supports previous data that showed high rates of advanced cervical cancer in women older than age 65, with resultant worse 5-year relative survival in this population of older women specifically.⁴ ●

Cooley JJ, Maguire FB, Morris CR, et al. Cervical cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among women ≥65 years in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023;32:91-97. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0793.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening cessation at age 65 once specific exit criteria are met. (According to the American Cancer Society, individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening.)¹ We know, however, that about one-fifth of all cervical cancer cases are diagnosed among individuals aged 65 or older, and for Black women that proportion is even higher when data are appropriately adjusted to account for the increased rate of hysterectomy among Black versus White women.^2-4

Early-stage cervical cancer is largely a curable disease with very high 5-year overall survival rates. Unfortunately, more than half of all cervical cancer is diagnosed at a more advanced stage, and survival rates are much lower for this population.⁵

Cervical cancer incidence rates plummeted in the United States after the introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening. However, the percentage of women who are not up to date with cervical cancer screening may now be increasing, from 14% in 2005 to 23% in 2019 according to one study from the US Preventive Services Task Force.⁶ When looking at cervical cancer screening rates by age, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the proportion of patients who have not been recently screened goes up as patients get older, with approximately 845,000 American women aged 61 to 65 not adequately screened in 2015 alone.⁷

Details of the study

Cooley and colleagues sought to better characterize the cohort of women diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later age, specifically the stage at diagnosis and survival.⁸ They used data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR), a large state-mandated, population-based data repository that is affiliated with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The researchers identified 12,442 womenin the CCR who were newly diagnosed with cervical cancer from 2009 to 2018, 17.4% of whom were age 65 or older. They looked at cancer stage at diagnosis as it relates to relative survival rate (“the ratio of the observed survival rate among those who have cancer divided by the expected survival rate for people of the same sex, race/ethnicity, and age who do not have cancer”), Charlson comorbidity score, socioeconomic status, health insurance status, urbanicity, and race/ethnicity.

Results. In this study, 71% of women aged 65 or older presented with advanced-stage disease (FIGO [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics] stage II–IV) as compared with only 48% in those aged 21 to 64. Five-year relative survival rates also were lower in the older cohort—23% to 37%, compared with 42% to 52% in the younger patients. In a sensitivity analysis, late-stage disease was associated with older age, increasing medical comorbidities, and nonadenocarcinoma histology.

Interestingly, older women of Hispanic ethnicity were less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease when compared with non-Hispanic White women.

Study strengths and limitations

Although this study’s conclusions—that patients with advanced-stage cancer are more likely to do poorly than those with early-stage cancer—may seem obvious to some even without the proven data, it is still important to highlight what a clinician may intuit with data to support that intuition. It is particularly important to emphasize this risk in older women in light of the aging population in the United States, with adults older than age 65 expected to account for more than 20% of the nation’s population by 2030.⁹

The study by Cooley and colleagues adds value to the existing literature due to its large study population, which included more than 12,000 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer.⁸ And although its results may not be completely generalizable as the data were gathered from only a California-specific population, the sample was diverse with significant portions of Hispanic and Black patients. This study supports previous data that showed high rates of advanced cervical cancer in women older than age 65, with resultant worse 5-year relative survival in this population of older women specifically.⁴ ●

THE CASE

A 23-year-old woman sought care from her primary care physician (PCP) after being sick for 7 days. The illness started with a headache and fatigue, and by Day 6, she also had fever, chills, sore throat, nausea, a poor appetite, and intractable vomiting. The patient had no significant medical history and was socially isolating due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She had no known sick contacts or recent sexual activity and did not use any illicit drugs.

On examination, her vital signs were normal although she appeared ill and diaphoretic. A shallow tonsil ulcer and tonsillar adenopathy were present. Laboratory tests included a complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel, Monospot test, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antibody test. Results were notable for leukocytosis with atypical lymphocytes on her CBC. Her Monospot test and EBV immunoglobulin (Ig) M antibody were positive, and her EBV IgG antibody was negative. She was given a diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis (IM) and told to get adequate rest, drink a lot of fluids, and take ibuprofen or acetaminophen for pain control.

Two days later, she returned to her PCP with scleral icterus (FIGURE 1A), increasingly tender cervical lymphadenopathy, and left-side abdominal pain. Her liver function tests (LFTs) had worsened (TABLE). An abdominal ultrasound revealed mild diffuse decreased hepatic echogenicity and prominent periportal echogenicity, likely related to diffuse hepatic parenchymal disease, as well as splenomegaly and a mildly thickened gallbladder with no gallstones. She also had severe throat discomfort, with bilateral tonsillar exudates and pharyngeal erythema (FIGURE 1B).

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on her symptoms and the results of her physical examination, LFTs, EBV serologic assays, and abdominal ultrasound, this patient was given a diagnosis of acute EBV hepatitis.

DISCUSSION

EBV infection, which is the most common cause of IM, causes asymptomatic liver enzyme abnormalities in 80% to 90% of patients.^1-3 Although not common, patients can develop acute EBV hepatitis and require hospitalization.⁴

Be aware of potential complications. Prompt assessment of elevated liver enzymes and accurate diagnosis are key.⁵ Although acute EBV hepatitis is usually self-limiting, there can be serious gastrointestinal complications such as splenic rupture, liver failure due to acute and/or chronic EBV infection, autoimmune hepatitis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.² It’s rare for EBV hepatitis to lead to acute liver failure,but when that occurs, it can be fatal.^6-9 One case series revealed that while primary EBV infection accounts for less than 1% of adult acute liver failure cases, it has a high case fatality rate of 50%.⁹

Treatment for patients with EBV hepatitis is usually supportive and includes rest, analgesia, and avoidance of vigorous activity for 1 month to reduce the risk for splenic rupture.¹ In patients with nausea and vomiting, intravenous fluids may be necessary and can be administered at an outpatient infusion center. For individuals with severe tonsillar hypertrophy, prednisone (40-60 mg/d for 2-3 days, with subsequent tapering over 1-2 weeks) is indicated to prevent airway obstruction.¹ Acyclovir may be used to reduce EBV viral shedding; however, it has no significant clinical impact.¹

Continue to: Patients who are hemodynamially stable...

Patients who are hemodynamically stable and have appropriate access to follow-up care can be managed at home.² If follow-up cannot occur remotely within 1 week or the patient’s clinical status begins to worsen (ie, the patient’s liver enzymes or bilirubin levels dramatically increase), hospitalization is necessary.¹⁰

Through shared decision-making, our patient was treated as an outpatient based on her hemodynamic stability and her ability to closely follow up in the clinic and by phone and to access an outpatient infusion center. She was reexamined within 2 days and given ondansetron 8 mg IV with 2 L of normal saline at our outpatient infusion center. We also prescribed ibuprofen (400 mg every 6 hours as needed) for analgesia and issued the standard recommendations that she avoid contact sports (for at least 6 weeks) and excessive alcohol consumption.

On Day 11, the patient followed up with her PCP by telephone. The patient was started on oral prednisone (40 mg/d for 3 days with taper over the next week as symptoms improved) for her severe throat discomfort, exudates, difficulty swallowing, and muffled voice. By Day 14, her aminotransferase levels began to decrease (TABLE), and her symptoms steadily improved thereafter.

THE TAKEAWAY

When a patient presents with unexplained elevated liver enzymes or cholestasis, it is important to assess for signs and symptoms of EBV hepatitis. Although EBV hepatitis is typically self-limiting, it can have serious complications or be fatal. Prompt initiation of outpatient management may avoid these complications and hospitalization.

CORRESPONDENCE
Lydia J. Schneider, MD, 225 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 23-year-old woman sought care from her primary care physician (PCP) after being sick for 7 days. The illness started with a headache and fatigue, and by Day 6, she also had fever, chills, sore throat, nausea, a poor appetite, and intractable vomiting. The patient had no significant medical history and was socially isolating due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She had no known sick contacts or recent sexual activity and did not use any illicit drugs.

On examination, her vital signs were normal although she appeared ill and diaphoretic. A shallow tonsil ulcer and tonsillar adenopathy were present. Laboratory tests included a complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel, Monospot test, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antibody test. Results were notable for leukocytosis with atypical lymphocytes on her CBC. Her Monospot test and EBV immunoglobulin (Ig) M antibody were positive, and her EBV IgG antibody was negative. She was given a diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis (IM) and told to get adequate rest, drink a lot of fluids, and take ibuprofen or acetaminophen for pain control.

Two days later, she returned to her PCP with scleral icterus (FIGURE 1A), increasingly tender cervical lymphadenopathy, and left-side abdominal pain. Her liver function tests (LFTs) had worsened (TABLE). An abdominal ultrasound revealed mild diffuse decreased hepatic echogenicity and prominent periportal echogenicity, likely related to diffuse hepatic parenchymal disease, as well as splenomegaly and a mildly thickened gallbladder with no gallstones. She also had severe throat discomfort, with bilateral tonsillar exudates and pharyngeal erythema (FIGURE 1B).

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on her symptoms and the results of her physical examination, LFTs, EBV serologic assays, and abdominal ultrasound, this patient was given a diagnosis of acute EBV hepatitis.

DISCUSSION

EBV infection, which is the most common cause of IM, causes asymptomatic liver enzyme abnormalities in 80% to 90% of patients.^1-3 Although not common, patients can develop acute EBV hepatitis and require hospitalization.⁴

Be aware of potential complications. Prompt assessment of elevated liver enzymes and accurate diagnosis are key.⁵ Although acute EBV hepatitis is usually self-limiting, there can be serious gastrointestinal complications such as splenic rupture, liver failure due to acute and/or chronic EBV infection, autoimmune hepatitis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.² It’s rare for EBV hepatitis to lead to acute liver failure,but when that occurs, it can be fatal.^6-9 One case series revealed that while primary EBV infection accounts for less than 1% of adult acute liver failure cases, it has a high case fatality rate of 50%.⁹

Treatment for patients with EBV hepatitis is usually supportive and includes rest, analgesia, and avoidance of vigorous activity for 1 month to reduce the risk for splenic rupture.¹ In patients with nausea and vomiting, intravenous fluids may be necessary and can be administered at an outpatient infusion center. For individuals with severe tonsillar hypertrophy, prednisone (40-60 mg/d for 2-3 days, with subsequent tapering over 1-2 weeks) is indicated to prevent airway obstruction.¹ Acyclovir may be used to reduce EBV viral shedding; however, it has no significant clinical impact.¹

Continue to: Patients who are hemodynamially stable...

Patients who are hemodynamically stable and have appropriate access to follow-up care can be managed at home.² If follow-up cannot occur remotely within 1 week or the patient’s clinical status begins to worsen (ie, the patient’s liver enzymes or bilirubin levels dramatically increase), hospitalization is necessary.¹⁰

Through shared decision-making, our patient was treated as an outpatient based on her hemodynamic stability and her ability to closely follow up in the clinic and by phone and to access an outpatient infusion center. She was reexamined within 2 days and given ondansetron 8 mg IV with 2 L of normal saline at our outpatient infusion center. We also prescribed ibuprofen (400 mg every 6 hours as needed) for analgesia and issued the standard recommendations that she avoid contact sports (for at least 6 weeks) and excessive alcohol consumption.

On Day 11, the patient followed up with her PCP by telephone. The patient was started on oral prednisone (40 mg/d for 3 days with taper over the next week as symptoms improved) for her severe throat discomfort, exudates, difficulty swallowing, and muffled voice. By Day 14, her aminotransferase levels began to decrease (TABLE), and her symptoms steadily improved thereafter.

THE TAKEAWAY

When a patient presents with unexplained elevated liver enzymes or cholestasis, it is important to assess for signs and symptoms of EBV hepatitis. Although EBV hepatitis is typically self-limiting, it can have serious complications or be fatal. Prompt initiation of outpatient management may avoid these complications and hospitalization.

CORRESPONDENCE
Lydia J. Schneider, MD, 225 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 23-year-old woman sought care from her primary care physician (PCP) after being sick for 7 days. The illness started with a headache and fatigue, and by Day 6, she also had fever, chills, sore throat, nausea, a poor appetite, and intractable vomiting. The patient had no significant medical history and was socially isolating due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She had no known sick contacts or recent sexual activity and did not use any illicit drugs.

On examination, her vital signs were normal although she appeared ill and diaphoretic. A shallow tonsil ulcer and tonsillar adenopathy were present. Laboratory tests included a complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel, Monospot test, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antibody test. Results were notable for leukocytosis with atypical lymphocytes on her CBC. Her Monospot test and EBV immunoglobulin (Ig) M antibody were positive, and her EBV IgG antibody was negative. She was given a diagnosis of infectious mononucleosis (IM) and told to get adequate rest, drink a lot of fluids, and take ibuprofen or acetaminophen for pain control.

Two days later, she returned to her PCP with scleral icterus (FIGURE 1A), increasingly tender cervical lymphadenopathy, and left-side abdominal pain. Her liver function tests (LFTs) had worsened (TABLE). An abdominal ultrasound revealed mild diffuse decreased hepatic echogenicity and prominent periportal echogenicity, likely related to diffuse hepatic parenchymal disease, as well as splenomegaly and a mildly thickened gallbladder with no gallstones. She also had severe throat discomfort, with bilateral tonsillar exudates and pharyngeal erythema (FIGURE 1B).

THE DIAGNOSIS

Based on her symptoms and the results of her physical examination, LFTs, EBV serologic assays, and abdominal ultrasound, this patient was given a diagnosis of acute EBV hepatitis.

DISCUSSION

EBV infection, which is the most common cause of IM, causes asymptomatic liver enzyme abnormalities in 80% to 90% of patients.^1-3 Although not common, patients can develop acute EBV hepatitis and require hospitalization.⁴

Be aware of potential complications. Prompt assessment of elevated liver enzymes and accurate diagnosis are key.⁵ Although acute EBV hepatitis is usually self-limiting, there can be serious gastrointestinal complications such as splenic rupture, liver failure due to acute and/or chronic EBV infection, autoimmune hepatitis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.² It’s rare for EBV hepatitis to lead to acute liver failure,but when that occurs, it can be fatal.^6-9 One case series revealed that while primary EBV infection accounts for less than 1% of adult acute liver failure cases, it has a high case fatality rate of 50%.⁹

Treatment for patients with EBV hepatitis is usually supportive and includes rest, analgesia, and avoidance of vigorous activity for 1 month to reduce the risk for splenic rupture.¹ In patients with nausea and vomiting, intravenous fluids may be necessary and can be administered at an outpatient infusion center. For individuals with severe tonsillar hypertrophy, prednisone (40-60 mg/d for 2-3 days, with subsequent tapering over 1-2 weeks) is indicated to prevent airway obstruction.¹ Acyclovir may be used to reduce EBV viral shedding; however, it has no significant clinical impact.¹

Continue to: Patients who are hemodynamially stable...

Patients who are hemodynamically stable and have appropriate access to follow-up care can be managed at home.² If follow-up cannot occur remotely within 1 week or the patient’s clinical status begins to worsen (ie, the patient’s liver enzymes or bilirubin levels dramatically increase), hospitalization is necessary.¹⁰

Through shared decision-making, our patient was treated as an outpatient based on her hemodynamic stability and her ability to closely follow up in the clinic and by phone and to access an outpatient infusion center. She was reexamined within 2 days and given ondansetron 8 mg IV with 2 L of normal saline at our outpatient infusion center. We also prescribed ibuprofen (400 mg every 6 hours as needed) for analgesia and issued the standard recommendations that she avoid contact sports (for at least 6 weeks) and excessive alcohol consumption.

On Day 11, the patient followed up with her PCP by telephone. The patient was started on oral prednisone (40 mg/d for 3 days with taper over the next week as symptoms improved) for her severe throat discomfort, exudates, difficulty swallowing, and muffled voice. By Day 14, her aminotransferase levels began to decrease (TABLE), and her symptoms steadily improved thereafter.

THE TAKEAWAY

When a patient presents with unexplained elevated liver enzymes or cholestasis, it is important to assess for signs and symptoms of EBV hepatitis. Although EBV hepatitis is typically self-limiting, it can have serious complications or be fatal. Prompt initiation of outpatient management may avoid these complications and hospitalization.

CORRESPONDENCE
Lydia J. Schneider, MD, 225 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; [email protected]

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest HRT worsens rather than improves cognition

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 randomized, double-blind studies compared use of HRT (estrogen only or combination estrogen + progesterone therapies) with placebo in postmenopausal women (N = 43,637). Age ranges varied, but the average age in most studies was > 60 years. Treatment duration was at least 1 year. Various outcomes were assessed across these 22 studies, including cardiovascular disease, bone health, and cognition.¹

Cognitive outcomes were assessed with the Mini-Mental Status Exam in 5 of the trials (N = 12,789). Data were not combined due to heterogeneity. The authors found no significant difference in cognitive scores between the treatment and control groups in any of these 5 studies.¹

In the largest included study, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Memory Study (N = 10,739), participants were older than 65 years. Among those receiving estrogen-only HRT, there were no statistically significant differences compared to those receiving placebo. However, healthy postmenopausal women taking combination HRT had an increased risk for “probable dementia” compared to those taking placebo (relative risk [RR] = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.16-3.33). When researchers looked exclusively at women taking HRT, the risk for dementia increased from 9 in 1000 to 18 in 1000 (95% CI, 11-30) after 4 years of HRT use. This results in a number needed to harm of 4 to 50 patients.¹

Two notable limitations of this evidence are that the average age of this population was > 60 years and 80% of the participants were White.¹

A 2021 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs (N = 13,683) studied the effect of HRT on global cognitive function as well as specific cognitive domains including memory, executive function, attention, and language. Mean patient age in the studies varied from 48 to 81 years. Nine of these studies were also included in the previously discussed Cochrane review.²

There was a statistically significant but small decrease in overall global cognition (10 trials; N = 12,115; standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.04; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) in those receiving HRT compared to placebo. This effect was slightly more pronounced among those who initiated HRT at age > 60 years (8 trials; N = 11,914; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) and among patients with HRT duration > 6 months (7 trials; N = 11,828; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01). There were no significant differences in specific cognitive domains.²

In a 2017 follow-up to the WHI trial, researchers analyzed data on long-term cognitive effects in women previously treated with HRT. There were 2 cohorts: participants who initiated HRT at a younger age (50-54; N = 1376) and those who initiated HRT later in life (age 65-79; N = 2880). Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified, with interviews conducted annually beginning 6 to 7 years after HRT was stopped.³

The investigators found no significant change in composite cognitive function in the younger HRT-treated group compared to placebo (estrogen alone: mean deviation [MD] = 0.014; 95% CI, –0.097 to 0.126; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.047; 95% CI, –0.134 to 0.04), or in the group who initiated HRT at an older age (estrogen alone: MD = –0.099; 95% CI, –0.202 to 0.004; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.022; 95% CI, –0.099 to 0.055). The authors state that although the data did not reach significance, this study also found a trend toward decreases in global cognitive function in the older age group.³

Editor’s takeaway

Abundant, consistent evidence with long-term follow-up shows postmenopausal HRT does not reduce cognitive decline. In fact, it appears to increase cognitive decline slightly. Renewed interest in postmenopausal HRT to alleviate menopausal symptoms should balance the risks and benefits to the individual patient.

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest HRT worsens rather than improves cognition

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 randomized, double-blind studies compared use of HRT (estrogen only or combination estrogen + progesterone therapies) with placebo in postmenopausal women (N = 43,637). Age ranges varied, but the average age in most studies was > 60 years. Treatment duration was at least 1 year. Various outcomes were assessed across these 22 studies, including cardiovascular disease, bone health, and cognition.¹

Cognitive outcomes were assessed with the Mini-Mental Status Exam in 5 of the trials (N = 12,789). Data were not combined due to heterogeneity. The authors found no significant difference in cognitive scores between the treatment and control groups in any of these 5 studies.¹

In the largest included study, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Memory Study (N = 10,739), participants were older than 65 years. Among those receiving estrogen-only HRT, there were no statistically significant differences compared to those receiving placebo. However, healthy postmenopausal women taking combination HRT had an increased risk for “probable dementia” compared to those taking placebo (relative risk [RR] = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.16-3.33). When researchers looked exclusively at women taking HRT, the risk for dementia increased from 9 in 1000 to 18 in 1000 (95% CI, 11-30) after 4 years of HRT use. This results in a number needed to harm of 4 to 50 patients.¹

Two notable limitations of this evidence are that the average age of this population was > 60 years and 80% of the participants were White.¹

A 2021 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs (N = 13,683) studied the effect of HRT on global cognitive function as well as specific cognitive domains including memory, executive function, attention, and language. Mean patient age in the studies varied from 48 to 81 years. Nine of these studies were also included in the previously discussed Cochrane review.²

There was a statistically significant but small decrease in overall global cognition (10 trials; N = 12,115; standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.04; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) in those receiving HRT compared to placebo. This effect was slightly more pronounced among those who initiated HRT at age > 60 years (8 trials; N = 11,914; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) and among patients with HRT duration > 6 months (7 trials; N = 11,828; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01). There were no significant differences in specific cognitive domains.²

In a 2017 follow-up to the WHI trial, researchers analyzed data on long-term cognitive effects in women previously treated with HRT. There were 2 cohorts: participants who initiated HRT at a younger age (50-54; N = 1376) and those who initiated HRT later in life (age 65-79; N = 2880). Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified, with interviews conducted annually beginning 6 to 7 years after HRT was stopped.³

The investigators found no significant change in composite cognitive function in the younger HRT-treated group compared to placebo (estrogen alone: mean deviation [MD] = 0.014; 95% CI, –0.097 to 0.126; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.047; 95% CI, –0.134 to 0.04), or in the group who initiated HRT at an older age (estrogen alone: MD = –0.099; 95% CI, –0.202 to 0.004; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.022; 95% CI, –0.099 to 0.055). The authors state that although the data did not reach significance, this study also found a trend toward decreases in global cognitive function in the older age group.³

Editor’s takeaway

Abundant, consistent evidence with long-term follow-up shows postmenopausal HRT does not reduce cognitive decline. In fact, it appears to increase cognitive decline slightly. Renewed interest in postmenopausal HRT to alleviate menopausal symptoms should balance the risks and benefits to the individual patient.

Evidence summary

Multiple analyses suggest HRT worsens rather than improves cognition

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 randomized, double-blind studies compared use of HRT (estrogen only or combination estrogen + progesterone therapies) with placebo in postmenopausal women (N = 43,637). Age ranges varied, but the average age in most studies was > 60 years. Treatment duration was at least 1 year. Various outcomes were assessed across these 22 studies, including cardiovascular disease, bone health, and cognition.¹

Cognitive outcomes were assessed with the Mini-Mental Status Exam in 5 of the trials (N = 12,789). Data were not combined due to heterogeneity. The authors found no significant difference in cognitive scores between the treatment and control groups in any of these 5 studies.¹

In the largest included study, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Memory Study (N = 10,739), participants were older than 65 years. Among those receiving estrogen-only HRT, there were no statistically significant differences compared to those receiving placebo. However, healthy postmenopausal women taking combination HRT had an increased risk for “probable dementia” compared to those taking placebo (relative risk [RR] = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.16-3.33). When researchers looked exclusively at women taking HRT, the risk for dementia increased from 9 in 1000 to 18 in 1000 (95% CI, 11-30) after 4 years of HRT use. This results in a number needed to harm of 4 to 50 patients.¹

Two notable limitations of this evidence are that the average age of this population was > 60 years and 80% of the participants were White.¹

A 2021 meta-analysis of 23 RCTs (N = 13,683) studied the effect of HRT on global cognitive function as well as specific cognitive domains including memory, executive function, attention, and language. Mean patient age in the studies varied from 48 to 81 years. Nine of these studies were also included in the previously discussed Cochrane review.²

There was a statistically significant but small decrease in overall global cognition (10 trials; N = 12,115; standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.04; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) in those receiving HRT compared to placebo. This effect was slightly more pronounced among those who initiated HRT at age > 60 years (8 trials; N = 11,914; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01) and among patients with HRT duration > 6 months (7 trials; N = 11,828; SMD = –0.05; 95% CI, –0.08 to –0.01). There were no significant differences in specific cognitive domains.²

In a 2017 follow-up to the WHI trial, researchers analyzed data on long-term cognitive effects in women previously treated with HRT. There were 2 cohorts: participants who initiated HRT at a younger age (50-54; N = 1376) and those who initiated HRT later in life (age 65-79; N = 2880). Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-modified, with interviews conducted annually beginning 6 to 7 years after HRT was stopped.³

The investigators found no significant change in composite cognitive function in the younger HRT-treated group compared to placebo (estrogen alone: mean deviation [MD] = 0.014; 95% CI, –0.097 to 0.126; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.047; 95% CI, –0.134 to 0.04), or in the group who initiated HRT at an older age (estrogen alone: MD = –0.099; 95% CI, –0.202 to 0.004; estrogen + progesterone: MD = –0.022; 95% CI, –0.099 to 0.055). The authors state that although the data did not reach significance, this study also found a trend toward decreases in global cognitive function in the older age group.³

Editor’s takeaway

Abundant, consistent evidence with long-term follow-up shows postmenopausal HRT does not reduce cognitive decline. In fact, it appears to increase cognitive decline slightly. Renewed interest in postmenopausal HRT to alleviate menopausal symptoms should balance the risks and benefits to the individual patient.

It was a quiet day. I got up around 3 o’clock in the afternoon for my shift at 6 p.m. I was shaking off the cobwebs and making coffee at our front window that overlooked Brown Street in North Philadelphia. I looked out the window and saw a man stumbling down the street, grabbing his abdomen and yelling for help. There was nobody else around so I went outside to see what was going on.

He was in his 50s or 60s, bleeding and obviously in distress. I had him sit down. Then I ran back inside and grabbed a dish towel and some exam gloves that I had in the house.

I ran back out and assessed him. A bullet had gone through one of his hands, but he had other wounds. I had to expose him, so I trauma stripped him on the sidewalk. I got his pants and his shirt off and saw a gunshot going through his lower pelvis. He was bleeding out from there.

I got the towel and started applying deep pressure down into the iliac vein in case they hit something, which I found out later, they had. I held it there. The man was just lying there begging not to die.

I’m someone who is very calm, maybe abnormally calm, as people tell me. I try to use that during my resuscitations and traumas. Just keeping everybody calm makes the situation easier. Afterwards, people asked me, “Weren’t you worried that you were going to get shot?” That does happen in North Philadelphia. But it didn’t even cross my mind.

I didn’t have to think at all about what I was doing. We saw so many gunshots, especially at Einstein Medical Center. We saw them daily. I’d sometimes get more than half a dozen gunshots in one shift.

So, I was holding pressure and some people started to come over. I got somebody to call 911 and asked the man about his medical history. I found out he had diabetes. Five or 10 minutes later, EMS showed up. They looked pretty stunned when I was able to give the handoff presentation to them. I told them what happened and his back-story. I wanted to make sure they would check his sugar and take extra precautions.

They got him on the stretcher, and he eventually made it to the hospital where he had surgery. They had to have a vascular surgeon work on him. I called later, and they told me, “Yeah, he’s alive.” But that’s about the extent of the update I got.

After the ambulance left, it was kind of chaos. All the neighbors poured out of their houses. People were panicked, talking and getting excited about it. I didn’t know, but everyone else had actually been home the whole time. They didn’t come out until then.

I went back inside and tried to get ready for work. I wasn’t planning on talking to the media, but my next door neighbor just walked the news camera crew over to my house and knocked on my door. I wasn’t exactly dressed to be on TV, but they talked to me on camera, and it was on the news later that night.

I went to work and didn’t say anything about it. To be honest, I was trying to avoid telling anyone. Our team had a close-knit bond, and we would often tease each other when we received any type of recognition.

Naturally one of my attendings saw it on the local news and told everybody. So, I got a lot of happy harassment for quite some time. Someone baked me a cake that said, “Hero of Fairmount” (the Philly neighborhood in which I live). Someone else printed out a photo of me that said, “Stop the Bleed Hero of Fairmount,” and put it on every single computer screen.

The man came to see me about 2 weeks later (a neighbor told him where I lived). The man was very tearful and gave me a big hug. We just embraced for a while, and he said how thankful he was. He brought me a bottle of wine, which I thought was really nice.

He told me what happened to him: There was a lot of construction on our street and he was the contractor overseeing a couple of home remodels and demolitions. Sometimes he paid workers in cash and carried it with him. Somebody had tipped off somebody else that he was going to be there that day. The contractor walked into one of the houses and a guy in a ski mask waited there with a gun. The guy shot him and took the cash. The bullet went through his hand into his pelvis.

I had never had to deal with something that intense before outside of work. Most of it really comes down to the basics – the ABCs and bleeding control. You do whatever you can with what you have. In this case, it was just a dish towel, gloves, and my hands to put as much pressure as possible.

It really was strange that I happened to be looking out the window at that moment. I don’t know if it was just a coincidence. The man told me he believed God had put somebody there at the right place at the right time to save his life. I just felt very fortunate to have been able to help him. I never saw him again.

I think something like this gives you a little confidence that you can actually do something and make a meaningful impact anywhere when it’s needed. It lets you know that you’re capable of doing it. You always think about it, but you don’t know until it happens.

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

It was a quiet day. I got up around 3 o’clock in the afternoon for my shift at 6 p.m. I was shaking off the cobwebs and making coffee at our front window that overlooked Brown Street in North Philadelphia. I looked out the window and saw a man stumbling down the street, grabbing his abdomen and yelling for help. There was nobody else around so I went outside to see what was going on.

He was in his 50s or 60s, bleeding and obviously in distress. I had him sit down. Then I ran back inside and grabbed a dish towel and some exam gloves that I had in the house.

I ran back out and assessed him. A bullet had gone through one of his hands, but he had other wounds. I had to expose him, so I trauma stripped him on the sidewalk. I got his pants and his shirt off and saw a gunshot going through his lower pelvis. He was bleeding out from there.

I got the towel and started applying deep pressure down into the iliac vein in case they hit something, which I found out later, they had. I held it there. The man was just lying there begging not to die.

I’m someone who is very calm, maybe abnormally calm, as people tell me. I try to use that during my resuscitations and traumas. Just keeping everybody calm makes the situation easier. Afterwards, people asked me, “Weren’t you worried that you were going to get shot?” That does happen in North Philadelphia. But it didn’t even cross my mind.

I didn’t have to think at all about what I was doing. We saw so many gunshots, especially at Einstein Medical Center. We saw them daily. I’d sometimes get more than half a dozen gunshots in one shift.

So, I was holding pressure and some people started to come over. I got somebody to call 911 and asked the man about his medical history. I found out he had diabetes. Five or 10 minutes later, EMS showed up. They looked pretty stunned when I was able to give the handoff presentation to them. I told them what happened and his back-story. I wanted to make sure they would check his sugar and take extra precautions.

They got him on the stretcher, and he eventually made it to the hospital where he had surgery. They had to have a vascular surgeon work on him. I called later, and they told me, “Yeah, he’s alive.” But that’s about the extent of the update I got.

After the ambulance left, it was kind of chaos. All the neighbors poured out of their houses. People were panicked, talking and getting excited about it. I didn’t know, but everyone else had actually been home the whole time. They didn’t come out until then.

I went back inside and tried to get ready for work. I wasn’t planning on talking to the media, but my next door neighbor just walked the news camera crew over to my house and knocked on my door. I wasn’t exactly dressed to be on TV, but they talked to me on camera, and it was on the news later that night.

I went to work and didn’t say anything about it. To be honest, I was trying to avoid telling anyone. Our team had a close-knit bond, and we would often tease each other when we received any type of recognition.

Naturally one of my attendings saw it on the local news and told everybody. So, I got a lot of happy harassment for quite some time. Someone baked me a cake that said, “Hero of Fairmount” (the Philly neighborhood in which I live). Someone else printed out a photo of me that said, “Stop the Bleed Hero of Fairmount,” and put it on every single computer screen.

The man came to see me about 2 weeks later (a neighbor told him where I lived). The man was very tearful and gave me a big hug. We just embraced for a while, and he said how thankful he was. He brought me a bottle of wine, which I thought was really nice.

He told me what happened to him: There was a lot of construction on our street and he was the contractor overseeing a couple of home remodels and demolitions. Sometimes he paid workers in cash and carried it with him. Somebody had tipped off somebody else that he was going to be there that day. The contractor walked into one of the houses and a guy in a ski mask waited there with a gun. The guy shot him and took the cash. The bullet went through his hand into his pelvis.

I had never had to deal with something that intense before outside of work. Most of it really comes down to the basics – the ABCs and bleeding control. You do whatever you can with what you have. In this case, it was just a dish towel, gloves, and my hands to put as much pressure as possible.

It really was strange that I happened to be looking out the window at that moment. I don’t know if it was just a coincidence. The man told me he believed God had put somebody there at the right place at the right time to save his life. I just felt very fortunate to have been able to help him. I never saw him again.

I think something like this gives you a little confidence that you can actually do something and make a meaningful impact anywhere when it’s needed. It lets you know that you’re capable of doing it. You always think about it, but you don’t know until it happens.

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

It was a quiet day. I got up around 3 o’clock in the afternoon for my shift at 6 p.m. I was shaking off the cobwebs and making coffee at our front window that overlooked Brown Street in North Philadelphia. I looked out the window and saw a man stumbling down the street, grabbing his abdomen and yelling for help. There was nobody else around so I went outside to see what was going on.

He was in his 50s or 60s, bleeding and obviously in distress. I had him sit down. Then I ran back inside and grabbed a dish towel and some exam gloves that I had in the house.

I ran back out and assessed him. A bullet had gone through one of his hands, but he had other wounds. I had to expose him, so I trauma stripped him on the sidewalk. I got his pants and his shirt off and saw a gunshot going through his lower pelvis. He was bleeding out from there.

I got the towel and started applying deep pressure down into the iliac vein in case they hit something, which I found out later, they had. I held it there. The man was just lying there begging not to die.

I’m someone who is very calm, maybe abnormally calm, as people tell me. I try to use that during my resuscitations and traumas. Just keeping everybody calm makes the situation easier. Afterwards, people asked me, “Weren’t you worried that you were going to get shot?” That does happen in North Philadelphia. But it didn’t even cross my mind.

I didn’t have to think at all about what I was doing. We saw so many gunshots, especially at Einstein Medical Center. We saw them daily. I’d sometimes get more than half a dozen gunshots in one shift.

So, I was holding pressure and some people started to come over. I got somebody to call 911 and asked the man about his medical history. I found out he had diabetes. Five or 10 minutes later, EMS showed up. They looked pretty stunned when I was able to give the handoff presentation to them. I told them what happened and his back-story. I wanted to make sure they would check his sugar and take extra precautions.

They got him on the stretcher, and he eventually made it to the hospital where he had surgery. They had to have a vascular surgeon work on him. I called later, and they told me, “Yeah, he’s alive.” But that’s about the extent of the update I got.

After the ambulance left, it was kind of chaos. All the neighbors poured out of their houses. People were panicked, talking and getting excited about it. I didn’t know, but everyone else had actually been home the whole time. They didn’t come out until then.

I went back inside and tried to get ready for work. I wasn’t planning on talking to the media, but my next door neighbor just walked the news camera crew over to my house and knocked on my door. I wasn’t exactly dressed to be on TV, but they talked to me on camera, and it was on the news later that night.

I went to work and didn’t say anything about it. To be honest, I was trying to avoid telling anyone. Our team had a close-knit bond, and we would often tease each other when we received any type of recognition.

Naturally one of my attendings saw it on the local news and told everybody. So, I got a lot of happy harassment for quite some time. Someone baked me a cake that said, “Hero of Fairmount” (the Philly neighborhood in which I live). Someone else printed out a photo of me that said, “Stop the Bleed Hero of Fairmount,” and put it on every single computer screen.

The man came to see me about 2 weeks later (a neighbor told him where I lived). The man was very tearful and gave me a big hug. We just embraced for a while, and he said how thankful he was. He brought me a bottle of wine, which I thought was really nice.

He told me what happened to him: There was a lot of construction on our street and he was the contractor overseeing a couple of home remodels and demolitions. Sometimes he paid workers in cash and carried it with him. Somebody had tipped off somebody else that he was going to be there that day. The contractor walked into one of the houses and a guy in a ski mask waited there with a gun. The guy shot him and took the cash. The bullet went through his hand into his pelvis.

I had never had to deal with something that intense before outside of work. Most of it really comes down to the basics – the ABCs and bleeding control. You do whatever you can with what you have. In this case, it was just a dish towel, gloves, and my hands to put as much pressure as possible.

It really was strange that I happened to be looking out the window at that moment. I don’t know if it was just a coincidence. The man told me he believed God had put somebody there at the right place at the right time to save his life. I just felt very fortunate to have been able to help him. I never saw him again.

I think something like this gives you a little confidence that you can actually do something and make a meaningful impact anywhere when it’s needed. It lets you know that you’re capable of doing it. You always think about it, but you don’t know until it happens.

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

Recently, my family had a conversation about the volume of news reports on overdose deaths from the illicit use of opioid drugs—a phenomenon that is complex and stems from many factors. We decided, as a family, that we could have a small impact on the problem. How? By carrying naloxone with us and administering it if we encounter a person with potential opioid overdose. Our decision was made possible by the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of naloxone nasal spray for over-the-counter use.¹ At a cost of about $50 for 2 nasal sprays, we decided it would be a reasonable price to pay to potentially save a life.

The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility.

Prescribing opioids in clinical practice is a different side of the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that prescription opioids account for about one-quarter of opioid overdose deaths.² This is not trivial, and much effort has gone into addressing how clinicians can do better by their patients. There are training programs and risk-mitigation strategies for opioid prescribing. States have developed prescribing registries to identify patients who receive controlled substances from multiple prescribers, at higher-than-recommended doses, and too early in the pain management process. These efforts have reduced the number of opioid prescriptions and rates of high-dose prescribing (> 90 morphine milligram equivalents). However, that hasn’t translated into a reduction in the number of deaths.²

The article by Posen et al³ in this issue further reminded me how trends in health care, including opioid prescribing, are like a pendulum—swinging from one extreme to the other before eventually centering. I recall conversations with colleagues about how often we undertreated pain—and then later, how relieved we were when new approaches to pain management, using newer opiates, emerged and were reported to be much safer, even for long-term use. We now know the rest of that story: more prescriptions, higher doses, longer duration, addiction, death, and deception by manufacturers.

In our efforts to prevent addiction and decrease opioid deaths, we tried to get patients off opioids completely, thereby increasing demand for addiction therapy, including medication-assisted recovery. This also drove many of our patients to seek opioids from nefarious suppliers, resulting in even more deaths from fentanyl-laced drugs.

At least one positive has arisen from the “no more opioids” movement: We have re-evaluated their true effect on managing pain. Initially, we were told opioids were safe and highly effective—and, having few tools to help our patients, we were ­Pollyanna-ish in accepting this. But many recent studies have demonstrated that using opioids for pain is no more effective than using other analgesics.^4-9 In addition to overdose deaths and addiction, these studies show significantly higher rates of opioid discontinuation due to adverse effects.

We certainly can manage most patients’ pain effectively with other approaches. For some, though—patients whose pain is not adequately controlled and/or interferes with their ability to function, and those who are terminally ill—opioid nihilism has had unintended consequences. Recognizing these issues, the CDC updated its guideline for prescribing opioids in 2022.¹⁰ Four areas were addressed: whether to initiate opioids; opioid selection and dosing; duration of therapy and need for follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility. Finally, the CDC encourages clinicians to identify and treat patients with opioid use disorders.

Clearly, opioid overuse and overdose result from complex medical, economic, and societal factors. Individual clinicians are well equipped to manage things “in their own backyards.” However, what we do can be perceived as a bandage for a much larger problem. Our public health system has the potential for greater impact, but the “cure” will require multimodal solutions addressing many facets of society and government.¹¹ At the very least, we should keep some naloxone close by and vote for political candidates who see broader solutions for addressing this life-and-death crisis.

Recently, my family had a conversation about the volume of news reports on overdose deaths from the illicit use of opioid drugs—a phenomenon that is complex and stems from many factors. We decided, as a family, that we could have a small impact on the problem. How? By carrying naloxone with us and administering it if we encounter a person with potential opioid overdose. Our decision was made possible by the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of naloxone nasal spray for over-the-counter use.¹ At a cost of about $50 for 2 nasal sprays, we decided it would be a reasonable price to pay to potentially save a life.

The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility.

Prescribing opioids in clinical practice is a different side of the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that prescription opioids account for about one-quarter of opioid overdose deaths.² This is not trivial, and much effort has gone into addressing how clinicians can do better by their patients. There are training programs and risk-mitigation strategies for opioid prescribing. States have developed prescribing registries to identify patients who receive controlled substances from multiple prescribers, at higher-than-recommended doses, and too early in the pain management process. These efforts have reduced the number of opioid prescriptions and rates of high-dose prescribing (> 90 morphine milligram equivalents). However, that hasn’t translated into a reduction in the number of deaths.²

The article by Posen et al³ in this issue further reminded me how trends in health care, including opioid prescribing, are like a pendulum—swinging from one extreme to the other before eventually centering. I recall conversations with colleagues about how often we undertreated pain—and then later, how relieved we were when new approaches to pain management, using newer opiates, emerged and were reported to be much safer, even for long-term use. We now know the rest of that story: more prescriptions, higher doses, longer duration, addiction, death, and deception by manufacturers.

In our efforts to prevent addiction and decrease opioid deaths, we tried to get patients off opioids completely, thereby increasing demand for addiction therapy, including medication-assisted recovery. This also drove many of our patients to seek opioids from nefarious suppliers, resulting in even more deaths from fentanyl-laced drugs.

At least one positive has arisen from the “no more opioids” movement: We have re-evaluated their true effect on managing pain. Initially, we were told opioids were safe and highly effective—and, having few tools to help our patients, we were ­Pollyanna-ish in accepting this. But many recent studies have demonstrated that using opioids for pain is no more effective than using other analgesics.^4-9 In addition to overdose deaths and addiction, these studies show significantly higher rates of opioid discontinuation due to adverse effects.

We certainly can manage most patients’ pain effectively with other approaches. For some, though—patients whose pain is not adequately controlled and/or interferes with their ability to function, and those who are terminally ill—opioid nihilism has had unintended consequences. Recognizing these issues, the CDC updated its guideline for prescribing opioids in 2022.¹⁰ Four areas were addressed: whether to initiate opioids; opioid selection and dosing; duration of therapy and need for follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility. Finally, the CDC encourages clinicians to identify and treat patients with opioid use disorders.

Clearly, opioid overuse and overdose result from complex medical, economic, and societal factors. Individual clinicians are well equipped to manage things “in their own backyards.” However, what we do can be perceived as a bandage for a much larger problem. Our public health system has the potential for greater impact, but the “cure” will require multimodal solutions addressing many facets of society and government.¹¹ At the very least, we should keep some naloxone close by and vote for political candidates who see broader solutions for addressing this life-and-death crisis.

Recently, my family had a conversation about the volume of news reports on overdose deaths from the illicit use of opioid drugs—a phenomenon that is complex and stems from many factors. We decided, as a family, that we could have a small impact on the problem. How? By carrying naloxone with us and administering it if we encounter a person with potential opioid overdose. Our decision was made possible by the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of naloxone nasal spray for over-the-counter use.¹ At a cost of about $50 for 2 nasal sprays, we decided it would be a reasonable price to pay to potentially save a life.

The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility.

Prescribing opioids in clinical practice is a different side of the problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that prescription opioids account for about one-quarter of opioid overdose deaths.² This is not trivial, and much effort has gone into addressing how clinicians can do better by their patients. There are training programs and risk-mitigation strategies for opioid prescribing. States have developed prescribing registries to identify patients who receive controlled substances from multiple prescribers, at higher-than-recommended doses, and too early in the pain management process. These efforts have reduced the number of opioid prescriptions and rates of high-dose prescribing (> 90 morphine milligram equivalents). However, that hasn’t translated into a reduction in the number of deaths.²

The article by Posen et al³ in this issue further reminded me how trends in health care, including opioid prescribing, are like a pendulum—swinging from one extreme to the other before eventually centering. I recall conversations with colleagues about how often we undertreated pain—and then later, how relieved we were when new approaches to pain management, using newer opiates, emerged and were reported to be much safer, even for long-term use. We now know the rest of that story: more prescriptions, higher doses, longer duration, addiction, death, and deception by manufacturers.

In our efforts to prevent addiction and decrease opioid deaths, we tried to get patients off opioids completely, thereby increasing demand for addiction therapy, including medication-assisted recovery. This also drove many of our patients to seek opioids from nefarious suppliers, resulting in even more deaths from fentanyl-laced drugs.

At least one positive has arisen from the “no more opioids” movement: We have re-evaluated their true effect on managing pain. Initially, we were told opioids were safe and highly effective—and, having few tools to help our patients, we were ­Pollyanna-ish in accepting this. But many recent studies have demonstrated that using opioids for pain is no more effective than using other analgesics.^4-9 In addition to overdose deaths and addiction, these studies show significantly higher rates of opioid discontinuation due to adverse effects.

We certainly can manage most patients’ pain effectively with other approaches. For some, though—patients whose pain is not adequately controlled and/or interferes with their ability to function, and those who are terminally ill—opioid nihilism has had unintended consequences. Recognizing these issues, the CDC updated its guideline for prescribing opioids in 2022.¹⁰ Four areas were addressed: whether to initiate opioids; opioid selection and dosing; duration of therapy and need for follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. The CDC encourages clinicians to find a balance of the potential benefits and harms and to avoid inflexibility. Finally, the CDC encourages clinicians to identify and treat patients with opioid use disorders.

Clearly, opioid overuse and overdose result from complex medical, economic, and societal factors. Individual clinicians are well equipped to manage things “in their own backyards.” However, what we do can be perceived as a bandage for a much larger problem. Our public health system has the potential for greater impact, but the “cure” will require multimodal solutions addressing many facets of society and government.¹¹ At the very least, we should keep some naloxone close by and vote for political candidates who see broader solutions for addressing this life-and-death crisis.

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The past few years have seen major transformations in the way health care websites operate and interact with patients. To stay competitive, it is important to ensure that your website is adapting to this changing environment, and that it continues adapting as future changes further impact its performance and ranking.

In mid-2018, a major Google algorithm change, known to the IT community as the “Medic Update,” significantly changed search criteria for most health and wellness websites. Another big update went live in late 2021. Websites that have not evolved with these changes have dropped in search rankings and provide a poorer user experience all around.

Many potential patients are searching for your services online, so your website cannot be an afterthought. Not only does it need to be designed with your target audience in mind, but it is also important to consider the metrics Google and other search engines now use when assessing the quality of your website so that patients will find it in the first place.

Here are some features that you (or your website company) need to prioritize to keep your site current and atop search results in 2023 and beyond.

Begin with an understandable URL. Search engines use URLs to determine how well your site, or a portion of it, matches search criteria. URLs also need to make sense to searchers, especially when they link specific areas of expertise (more on that in a minute). For example, a URL like “jonesdermatology.com/?p=89021” is meaningless to anyone except programmers; but “jonesdermatology.com/psoriasistreatments” obviously leads to a page about psoriasis treatments. Search engines look for not only the most relevant, but also the most helpful and user-friendly answers to a user’s query.

Incidentally, if the URL for your site is not your own name, you should register your name as a separate domain name – even if you never use it – to be sure that a trickster or troll, or someone with the same name but a bad reputation, doesn’t get it.

Continue with a good meta description. That’s the grayish text that follows the title and URL in search results. Searchers will read it to confirm that your site is what they seek, so make sure it describes exactly what you do, including any areas of special expertise.

Make your practice approachable with photos. New patients are more comfortable when they know what you look like, so real photos of you and your staff are always more effective than stock photos of models. Photos or a video tour of your office will reassure prospective patients that they will be visiting a clean, modern, professional facility.

Describe your principal services in detail. You never know which specific service a prospective patient is searching for, so describe everything you offer. Don’t try to summarize everything on a single page; relevance is determined by how deeply a topic is covered, so each principal service should have a detailed description on its own page. Not only will your skills become more visible to search engines, but you can also use the space to enumerate your qualifications and expertise in each area. Whenever possible, write your descriptions in question-and-answer form. Searchers tend to ask questions (“what is the best ... ?”), particularly in voice searches. Search engines increasingly value sites that ask and answer common questions.

Make your site interactive. “Interactivity” is a major buzzword in modern search engine parlance. Once searchers make an appointment, they stop searching. If they have to wait until the next day to call your office, they may keep looking – and might find a competitor with online scheduling. HIPAA-compliant chatbots, secure messaging, and online patient portals to access medical records, lab results, and other important information will also set your site apart.

Testimonials are essential. Amazon.com taught us that candid reviews from customers go a long way toward building the trust necessary to buy products and services, and nowhere is that truer than for medical services. According to one study, when it comes to finding a doctor, 88% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. Loyal patients will be happy to write you glowing reviews; feature them prominently.

How does your site look on small screens? More than half of all searches are now made on smartphones, so the more mobile-friendly your site is, the higher it will be ranked. Prospective patients who are forced to scroll forever, or zoom in to tap a link, are likely to become frustrated and move on. Mobile searchers prefer sites that provide the best experience for the least amount of effort, and rankings tend to reflect that preference. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test..

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) is a biochemical state in which the thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is elevated while the free thyroxine (T4) level is normal. Overt hypothyroidism is not diagnosed until the free T4 level is decreased, regardless of the degree of TSH elevation.

The overall prevalence of SCH in iodine-rich areas is 4% to 10%, with a risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism of between 2% and 6% annually.¹ The prevalence of SCH varies depending on the TSH reference range used.¹ The normal reference range for TSH varies depending on the laboratory and/or the reference population surveyed, with the range likely widening with increasing age.

SCH is most common among women, the elderly, and White individuals.² The discovery of SCH is often incidental, given that usually it is detected by laboratory findings alone without associated symptoms of overt hypothyroidism.³

The not-so-significant role of symptoms in subclinical hypothyroidism

Symptoms associated with overt hypothyroidism include constipation, dry skin, fatigue, slow thinking, poor memory, muscle cramps, weakness, and cold intolerance. In SCH, these symptoms are inconsistent, with around 1 in 3 patients having no symptoms at all.⁴

One study reported that roughly 18% of euthyroid individuals, 22% of SCH patients, and 26% of those with overt hypothyroidism reported 4 or more symptoms classically thought to be related to hypothyroidism.⁴ A large Danish cohort study found that hypothyroid symptoms were no more common in patients with SCH than in euthyroid individuals in the general population.⁵ These studies question the validity of attributing symptoms to SCH.

Adverse health associations

Observational data suggest that SCH is associated with an increased risk for dyslipidemia, coronary heart disease, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality, particularly in those with TSH levels ≥ 10 mIU/L.^6,7 Such associations were not found for most adults with TSH levels between 5 and 10 mIU/L.⁸ There are also potential associations of SCH with obesity, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.^9,10 Despite thyroid studies being commonly ordered as part of a mental health evaluation, SCH has not been statistically associated with depressive symptoms.^11,12

Caveats with laboratory testing

There are several issues to consider when performing a laboratory assessment of thyroid function. TSH levels fluctuate considerably during the day, as TSH secretion has a circadian rhythm. TSH values are 50% higher at night and in the early morning than during the rest of the day.¹³ TSH values also may rise in response to current illness or stress. Due to this biologic variability, repeat testing to confirm TSH levels is recommended if an initial test result is abnormal.¹⁴

Continue to: An exact reference range...

Supplements containing biotin should be withheld for several days before assessing thyroid function.

An exact reference range for TSH is not widely agreed upon—although most laboratories regard 4.0 to 5.0 mIU/L as the high-end cutoff for normal. Also, “normal” TSH levels appear to differ by age. Accordingly, some experts have recommended an age-based reference range for TSH levels,¹⁵ although this is not implemented widely by laboratories. A TSH level of 6.0 mIU/L (or even higher) may be more appropriate for adults older than 65 years.¹

Biotin supplementation has been shown to cause spurious thyroid testing results (TSH, T3, T4) depending on the type of assay used. Therefore, supplements containing biotin should be withheld for several days before assessing thyroid function.¹⁶Patients with SCH are often categorized as having TSH levels between 4.5 and 10 mIU/L (around 90% of patients) or levels ≥ 10 mIU/L.^8,17 If followed for 5 years, approximately 60% of patients with SCH and TSH levels between 4 and 10 mIU/L will normalize without intervention.¹⁸ Normalization is less common in patients with a TSH level greater than 10 mIU/L.¹⁸

The risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism also appears to be higher for those with certain risk factors. These include higher baseline TSH levels, presence of thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAbs), or history of neck irradiation or radioactive iodine uptake.¹ Other risk factors for eventual thyroid dysfunction include female sex, older age, goiter, and high iodine intake.¹³

Evidence for treatment varies

Guidelines for the treatment of SCH (TABLE 1^8,14,19,20) are founded on the condition’s risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism and its association with health consequences such as cardiovascular disease. Guidelines of the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and European Thyroid Association (ETA), and those of the United Kingdom–based National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), prioritize treatment for individuals with a TSH level > 10 mIU/L^a and for those with TSH values < 10 mIU/L but still elevated and apparent symptoms of hypothyroidism.^14,19,20 The strength of evidence behind this guidance is challenged by a lack of data from prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating health benefits following treatment of SCH. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Guideline cites this lack of evidence and recommends against treating SCH at any TSH level, regardless of symptoms.⁸

There are few large RCTs of treatment outcomes for SCH. A 2017 RCT (the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Untreated Older Adults with Subclinical Hypothyroidism, or TRUST, trial) of 737 adults older than 65 years with SCH evaluated the ability of levothyroxine to normalize TSH values compared with placebo. At 1 year, there was no difference in hypothyroid symptoms or tiredness scale scores with levothyroxine treatment compared with placebo.²¹ This finding was consistent even in the subgroup with a higher baseline symptom burden.²²

Continue to: Two small RCTs evaluated...

Two small RCTs evaluated treatment of SCH with depressive symptoms and cognitive function, neither finding benefit compared with placebo.^12,23 A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies and 2192 adults did not show a benefit to quality of life or thyroid-specific symptoms in those treated for SCH compared with controls.²⁴

RCT support also is lacking for a reduction in cardiovascular mortality following treatment for SCH. A large population-level retrospective cohort from Denmark showed no difference in cardiovascular mortality or myocardial infarction in those treated for SCH compared with controls.²⁵ Pooled results from 2 RCTs (for patients older than 65 years, and those older than 80 years) showed no change in risk for cardiovascular outcomes in older adults treated for SCH.²⁶ Older adults treated for SCH in the TRUST trial showed no improvements in systolic or diastolic­ function on echocardiography.^27­ Two trials showed no difference in carotid intima-media thickness with treatment of SCH compared with placebo.^28,29

While most of the RCT data come from older adults, a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom of younger (ages 40-70 years; n = 3093) and older (age > 70 years; n = 1642) patients showed a reduction in cardiovascular mortality among treated patients who were younger (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 4.2% vs. 6.6%) but not those who were older (HR = 0.99; 12.7% vs. 10.7%).³⁰ There is also evidence that thyroid size in those with goiter can be reduced with treatment of SCH.³¹

A measured approach to treating subclinical hypothyroidism

Consider several factors when deciding whether to treat SCH. For instance, RCT data suggest a lack of treatment benefit in relieving depression, improving cognition, or reducing general hypothyroid symptoms. Treatment of SCH in older adults does not appear to improve cardiovascular outcomes. The question of whether long-term treatment of SCH in younger patients reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality lacks answers from RCTs. Before diagnosing SCH or starting treatment, always confirm SCH with repeat testing in 2 to 3 months, as a high percentage of those with untreated SCH will have normal thyroid function on repeat testing.

Before diagnosing subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) or starting treatment, always confirm SCH with repeat testing in 2 to 3 months.

In the event you and your patient elect to treat SCH, guidelines and trials generally support a low initial daily dose of 25 to 50 mcg of levothyroxine (T4), followed with dose changes­ every 4 to 8 weeks and a goal of normalizing TSH to within the lower half of the reference range (0.4-2.5 mIU/L).¹⁴ This is generally similar to published treatment goals for primary hypothyroidism and is based on studies suggesting the lower half of the reference range is normal for young, healthy, euthyroid individuals.³² Though full replacement doses (1.6-1.8 mcg/kg of ideal body weight) can be started for those who are elderly or who have ischemic heart disease or angina, this approach should be avoided in favor of low-dose initial therapy.³³ Thyroid supplements are best absorbed when taken apart from food, calcium, or iron supplements. The ATA suggests taking thyroid medication 60 minutes before breakfast or at bedtime (3 or more hours after the evening meal).³³

Continue to: Screening guidelines differ

Lacking population-level screening data from RCTs, most organizations do not recommend screening for thyroid dysfunction or they note insufficient evidence to make a screening recommendation (TABLE 2^17,19,20,34). In their most recent recommendation statement on the subject in 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded the current evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against thyroid dysfunction screening in nonpregnant, asymptomatic adults.¹⁷ This differs from the ATA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE; formerly known as the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists), which both recommend targeted screening for thyroid dysfunction based on symptoms or risk factors.²⁰

What about subclinical hypothyroidism in pregnancy?

Overt hypothyroidism is associated with adverse events during pregnancy and with subsequent neurodevelopmental complications in children, although the effects of SCH during pregnancy remain less certain. Concerns have been raised over the potential association of SCH with pregnancy loss, placental abruption, premature rupture of membranes, and neonatal death.³⁵ Historically, the prevalence of SCH during pregnancy has ranged from 2% to 2.5%, but using lower trimester-based TSH reference ranges, the prevalence of SCH in pregnancy may be as high as 15%.³⁵

Guided by a large RCT that failed to find benefit (pregnancy outcomes, neurodevelopmental outcomes in children) following treatment of SCH in pregnancy,³⁶ the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends against routine screening for thyroid disease in pregnancy.³⁴ The ATA notes insufficient evidence to rec-ommend universal screening for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy but recommends targeted screening of those with risk factors.³⁷ Data are conflicting on the benefit of treating known or recently detected SCH on pregnancy outcomes including pregnancy loss.^35,38 As such, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the ATA both generally recommend treatment of SCH in pregnant patients, particularly when the TSH is ≥ 4.0 mIU/L and TPOAbs are present.^37,39

^a The ATA, ETA, and NICE have slightly different recommendations when a TSH level = 10 mIU/L. ETA and NICE recommend prioritizing treatment for individuals with this level, while ATA recommends treatment when individual factors are also considered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Family Medicine Medical Librarian Gwen Wilson, MLS, AHIP, for her assistance with literature searches.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicholas LeFevre, MD, Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri–Columbia School of Medicine, One Hospital Drive, M224 Medical Science Building, Columbia, MO 65212; [email protected]

Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) is a biochemical state in which the thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is elevated while the free thyroxine (T4) level is normal. Overt hypothyroidism is not diagnosed until the free T4 level is decreased, regardless of the degree of TSH elevation.

The overall prevalence of SCH in iodine-rich areas is 4% to 10%, with a risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism of between 2% and 6% annually.¹ The prevalence of SCH varies depending on the TSH reference range used.¹ The normal reference range for TSH varies depending on the laboratory and/or the reference population surveyed, with the range likely widening with increasing age.

SCH is most common among women, the elderly, and White individuals.² The discovery of SCH is often incidental, given that usually it is detected by laboratory findings alone without associated symptoms of overt hypothyroidism.³

The not-so-significant role of symptoms in subclinical hypothyroidism

Symptoms associated with overt hypothyroidism include constipation, dry skin, fatigue, slow thinking, poor memory, muscle cramps, weakness, and cold intolerance. In SCH, these symptoms are inconsistent, with around 1 in 3 patients having no symptoms at all.⁴

One study reported that roughly 18% of euthyroid individuals, 22% of SCH patients, and 26% of those with overt hypothyroidism reported 4 or more symptoms classically thought to be related to hypothyroidism.⁴ A large Danish cohort study found that hypothyroid symptoms were no more common in patients with SCH than in euthyroid individuals in the general population.⁵ These studies question the validity of attributing symptoms to SCH.

Adverse health associations

Observational data suggest that SCH is associated with an increased risk for dyslipidemia, coronary heart disease, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality, particularly in those with TSH levels ≥ 10 mIU/L.^6,7 Such associations were not found for most adults with TSH levels between 5 and 10 mIU/L.⁸ There are also potential associations of SCH with obesity, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.^9,10 Despite thyroid studies being commonly ordered as part of a mental health evaluation, SCH has not been statistically associated with depressive symptoms.^11,12

Caveats with laboratory testing

There are several issues to consider when performing a laboratory assessment of thyroid function. TSH levels fluctuate considerably during the day, as TSH secretion has a circadian rhythm. TSH values are 50% higher at night and in the early morning than during the rest of the day.¹³ TSH values also may rise in response to current illness or stress. Due to this biologic variability, repeat testing to confirm TSH levels is recommended if an initial test result is abnormal.¹⁴

Continue to: An exact reference range...

Supplements containing biotin should be withheld for several days before assessing thyroid function.

An exact reference range for TSH is not widely agreed upon—although most laboratories regard 4.0 to 5.0 mIU/L as the high-end cutoff for normal. Also, “normal” TSH levels appear to differ by age. Accordingly, some experts have recommended an age-based reference range for TSH levels,¹⁵ although this is not implemented widely by laboratories. A TSH level of 6.0 mIU/L (or even higher) may be more appropriate for adults older than 65 years.¹

Biotin supplementation has been shown to cause spurious thyroid testing results (TSH, T3, T4) depending on the type of assay used. Therefore, supplements containing biotin should be withheld for several days before assessing thyroid function.¹⁶Patients with SCH are often categorized as having TSH levels between 4.5 and 10 mIU/L (around 90% of patients) or levels ≥ 10 mIU/L.^8,17 If followed for 5 years, approximately 60% of patients with SCH and TSH levels between 4 and 10 mIU/L will normalize without intervention.¹⁸ Normalization is less common in patients with a TSH level greater than 10 mIU/L.¹⁸

The risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism also appears to be higher for those with certain risk factors. These include higher baseline TSH levels, presence of thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAbs), or history of neck irradiation or radioactive iodine uptake.¹ Other risk factors for eventual thyroid dysfunction include female sex, older age, goiter, and high iodine intake.¹³

Evidence for treatment varies

Guidelines for the treatment of SCH (TABLE 1^8,14,19,20) are founded on the condition’s risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism and its association with health consequences such as cardiovascular disease. Guidelines of the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and European Thyroid Association (ETA), and those of the United Kingdom–based National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), prioritize treatment for individuals with a TSH level > 10 mIU/L^a and for those with TSH values < 10 mIU/L but still elevated and apparent symptoms of hypothyroidism.^14,19,20 The strength of evidence behind this guidance is challenged by a lack of data from prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating health benefits following treatment of SCH. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Guideline cites this lack of evidence and recommends against treating SCH at any TSH level, regardless of symptoms.⁸

There are few large RCTs of treatment outcomes for SCH. A 2017 RCT (the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Untreated Older Adults with Subclinical Hypothyroidism, or TRUST, trial) of 737 adults older than 65 years with SCH evaluated the ability of levothyroxine to normalize TSH values compared with placebo. At 1 year, there was no difference in hypothyroid symptoms or tiredness scale scores with levothyroxine treatment compared with placebo.²¹ This finding was consistent even in the subgroup with a higher baseline symptom burden.²²

Continue to: Two small RCTs evaluated...

Two small RCTs evaluated treatment of SCH with depressive symptoms and cognitive function, neither finding benefit compared with placebo.^12,23 A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies and 2192 adults did not show a benefit to quality of life or thyroid-specific symptoms in those treated for SCH compared with controls.²⁴

RCT support also is lacking for a reduction in cardiovascular mortality following treatment for SCH. A large population-level retrospective cohort from Denmark showed no difference in cardiovascular mortality or myocardial infarction in those treated for SCH compared with controls.²⁵ Pooled results from 2 RCTs (for patients older than 65 years, and those older than 80 years) showed no change in risk for cardiovascular outcomes in older adults treated for SCH.²⁶ Older adults treated for SCH in the TRUST trial showed no improvements in systolic or diastolic­ function on echocardiography.^27­ Two trials showed no difference in carotid intima-media thickness with treatment of SCH compared with placebo.^28,29

While most of the RCT data come from older adults, a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom of younger (ages 40-70 years; n = 3093) and older (age > 70 years; n = 1642) patients showed a reduction in cardiovascular mortality among treated patients who were younger (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 4.2% vs. 6.6%) but not those who were older (HR = 0.99; 12.7% vs. 10.7%).³⁰ There is also evidence that thyroid size in those with goiter can be reduced with treatment of SCH.³¹

A measured approach to treating subclinical hypothyroidism

Consider several factors when deciding whether to treat SCH. For instance, RCT data suggest a lack of treatment benefit in relieving depression, improving cognition, or reducing general hypothyroid symptoms. Treatment of SCH in older adults does not appear to improve cardiovascular outcomes. The question of whether long-term treatment of SCH in younger patients reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality lacks answers from RCTs. Before diagnosing SCH or starting treatment, always confirm SCH with repeat testing in 2 to 3 months, as a high percentage of those with untreated SCH will have normal thyroid function on repeat testing.

Before diagnosing subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) or starting treatment, always confirm SCH with repeat testing in 2 to 3 months.

In the event you and your patient elect to treat SCH, guidelines and trials generally support a low initial daily dose of 25 to 50 mcg of levothyroxine (T4), followed with dose changes­ every 4 to 8 weeks and a goal of normalizing TSH to within the lower half of the reference range (0.4-2.5 mIU/L).¹⁴ This is generally similar to published treatment goals for primary hypothyroidism and is based on studies suggesting the lower half of the reference range is normal for young, healthy, euthyroid individuals.³² Though full replacement doses (1.6-1.8 mcg/kg of ideal body weight) can be started for those who are elderly or who have ischemic heart disease or angina, this approach should be avoided in favor of low-dose initial therapy.³³ Thyroid supplements are best absorbed when taken apart from food, calcium, or iron supplements. The ATA suggests taking thyroid medication 60 minutes before breakfast or at bedtime (3 or more hours after the evening meal).³³

Continue to: Screening guidelines differ

Lacking population-level screening data from RCTs, most organizations do not recommend screening for thyroid dysfunction or they note insufficient evidence to make a screening recommendation (TABLE 2^17,19,20,34). In their most recent recommendation statement on the subject in 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded the current evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against thyroid dysfunction screening in nonpregnant, asymptomatic adults.¹⁷ This differs from the ATA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE; formerly known as the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists), which both recommend targeted screening for thyroid dysfunction based on symptoms or risk factors.²⁰

What about subclinical hypothyroidism in pregnancy?

Overt hypothyroidism is associated with adverse events during pregnancy and with subsequent neurodevelopmental complications in children, although the effects of SCH during pregnancy remain less certain. Concerns have been raised over the potential association of SCH with pregnancy loss, placental abruption, premature rupture of membranes, and neonatal death.³⁵ Historically, the prevalence of SCH during pregnancy has ranged from 2% to 2.5%, but using lower trimester-based TSH reference ranges, the prevalence of SCH in pregnancy may be as high as 15%.³⁵

Guided by a large RCT that failed to find benefit (pregnancy outcomes, neurodevelopmental outcomes in children) following treatment of SCH in pregnancy,³⁶ the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends against routine screening for thyroid disease in pregnancy.³⁴ The ATA notes insufficient evidence to rec-ommend universal screening for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy but recommends targeted screening of those with risk factors.³⁷ Data are conflicting on the benefit of treating known or recently detected SCH on pregnancy outcomes including pregnancy loss.^35,38 As such, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the ATA both generally recommend treatment of SCH in pregnant patients, particularly when the TSH is ≥ 4.0 mIU/L and TPOAbs are present.^37,39

^a The ATA, ETA, and NICE have slightly different recommendations when a TSH level = 10 mIU/L. ETA and NICE recommend prioritizing treatment for individuals with this level, while ATA recommends treatment when individual factors are also considered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Family Medicine Medical Librarian Gwen Wilson, MLS, AHIP, for her assistance with literature searches.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicholas LeFevre, MD, Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri–Columbia School of Medicine, One Hospital Drive, M224 Medical Science Building, Columbia, MO 65212; [email protected]

Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) is a biochemical state in which the thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is elevated while the free thyroxine (T4) level is normal. Overt hypothyroidism is not diagnosed until the free T4 level is decreased, regardless of the degree of TSH elevation.

The overall prevalence of SCH in iodine-rich areas is 4% to 10%, with a risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism of between 2% and 6% annually.¹ The prevalence of SCH varies depending on the TSH reference range used.¹ The normal reference range for TSH varies depending on the laboratory and/or the reference population surveyed, with the range likely widening with increasing age.

SCH is most common among women, the elderly, and White individuals.² The discovery of SCH is often incidental, given that usually it is detected by laboratory findings alone without associated symptoms of overt hypothyroidism.³

The not-so-significant role of symptoms in subclinical hypothyroidism

Symptoms associated with overt hypothyroidism include constipation, dry skin, fatigue, slow thinking, poor memory, muscle cramps, weakness, and cold intolerance. In SCH, these symptoms are inconsistent, with around 1 in 3 patients having no symptoms at all.⁴

One study reported that roughly 18% of euthyroid individuals, 22% of SCH patients, and 26% of those with overt hypothyroidism reported 4 or more symptoms classically thought to be related to hypothyroidism.⁴ A large Danish cohort study found that hypothyroid symptoms were no more common in patients with SCH than in euthyroid individuals in the general population.⁵ These studies question the validity of attributing symptoms to SCH.

Adverse health associations

Observational data suggest that SCH is associated with an increased risk for dyslipidemia, coronary heart disease, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality, particularly in those with TSH levels ≥ 10 mIU/L.^6,7 Such associations were not found for most adults with TSH levels between 5 and 10 mIU/L.⁸ There are also potential associations of SCH with obesity, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.^9,10 Despite thyroid studies being commonly ordered as part of a mental health evaluation, SCH has not been statistically associated with depressive symptoms.^11,12

Caveats with laboratory testing

There are several issues to consider when performing a laboratory assessment of thyroid function. TSH levels fluctuate considerably during the day, as TSH secretion has a circadian rhythm. TSH values are 50% higher at night and in the early morning than during the rest of the day.¹³ TSH values also may rise in response to current illness or stress. Due to this biologic variability, repeat testing to confirm TSH levels is recommended if an initial test result is abnormal.¹⁴

Continue to: An exact reference range...

Supplements containing biotin should be withheld for several days before assessing thyroid function.

An exact reference range for TSH is not widely agreed upon—although most laboratories regard 4.0 to 5.0 mIU/L as the high-end cutoff for normal. Also, “normal” TSH levels appear to differ by age. Accordingly, some experts have recommended an age-based reference range for TSH levels,¹⁵ although this is not implemented widely by laboratories. A TSH level of 6.0 mIU/L (or even higher) may be more appropriate for adults older than 65 years.¹

Biotin supplementation has been shown to cause spurious thyroid testing results (TSH, T3, T4) depending on the type of assay used. Therefore, supplements containing biotin should be withheld for several days before assessing thyroid function.¹⁶Patients with SCH are often categorized as having TSH levels between 4.5 and 10 mIU/L (around 90% of patients) or levels ≥ 10 mIU/L.^8,17 If followed for 5 years, approximately 60% of patients with SCH and TSH levels between 4 and 10 mIU/L will normalize without intervention.¹⁸ Normalization is less common in patients with a TSH level greater than 10 mIU/L.¹⁸

The risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism also appears to be higher for those with certain risk factors. These include higher baseline TSH levels, presence of thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAbs), or history of neck irradiation or radioactive iodine uptake.¹ Other risk factors for eventual thyroid dysfunction include female sex, older age, goiter, and high iodine intake.¹³

Evidence for treatment varies

Guidelines for the treatment of SCH (TABLE 1^8,14,19,20) are founded on the condition’s risk for progression to overt hypothyroidism and its association with health consequences such as cardiovascular disease. Guidelines of the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and European Thyroid Association (ETA), and those of the United Kingdom–based National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), prioritize treatment for individuals with a TSH level > 10 mIU/L^a and for those with TSH values < 10 mIU/L but still elevated and apparent symptoms of hypothyroidism.^14,19,20 The strength of evidence behind this guidance is challenged by a lack of data from prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating health benefits following treatment of SCH. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Guideline cites this lack of evidence and recommends against treating SCH at any TSH level, regardless of symptoms.⁸

There are few large RCTs of treatment outcomes for SCH. A 2017 RCT (the Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Untreated Older Adults with Subclinical Hypothyroidism, or TRUST, trial) of 737 adults older than 65 years with SCH evaluated the ability of levothyroxine to normalize TSH values compared with placebo. At 1 year, there was no difference in hypothyroid symptoms or tiredness scale scores with levothyroxine treatment compared with placebo.²¹ This finding was consistent even in the subgroup with a higher baseline symptom burden.²²

Continue to: Two small RCTs evaluated...

Two small RCTs evaluated treatment of SCH with depressive symptoms and cognitive function, neither finding benefit compared with placebo.^12,23 A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies and 2192 adults did not show a benefit to quality of life or thyroid-specific symptoms in those treated for SCH compared with controls.²⁴

RCT support also is lacking for a reduction in cardiovascular mortality following treatment for SCH. A large population-level retrospective cohort from Denmark showed no difference in cardiovascular mortality or myocardial infarction in those treated for SCH compared with controls.²⁵ Pooled results from 2 RCTs (for patients older than 65 years, and those older than 80 years) showed no change in risk for cardiovascular outcomes in older adults treated for SCH.²⁶ Older adults treated for SCH in the TRUST trial showed no improvements in systolic or diastolic­ function on echocardiography.^27­ Two trials showed no difference in carotid intima-media thickness with treatment of SCH compared with placebo.^28,29

While most of the RCT data come from older adults, a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom of younger (ages 40-70 years; n = 3093) and older (age > 70 years; n = 1642) patients showed a reduction in cardiovascular mortality among treated patients who were younger (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 4.2% vs. 6.6%) but not those who were older (HR = 0.99; 12.7% vs. 10.7%).³⁰ There is also evidence that thyroid size in those with goiter can be reduced with treatment of SCH.³¹

A measured approach to treating subclinical hypothyroidism

Consider several factors when deciding whether to treat SCH. For instance, RCT data suggest a lack of treatment benefit in relieving depression, improving cognition, or reducing general hypothyroid symptoms. Treatment of SCH in older adults does not appear to improve cardiovascular outcomes. The question of whether long-term treatment of SCH in younger patients reduces cardiovascular morbidity or mortality lacks answers from RCTs. Before diagnosing SCH or starting treatment, always confirm SCH with repeat testing in 2 to 3 months, as a high percentage of those with untreated SCH will have normal thyroid function on repeat testing.

Before diagnosing subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) or starting treatment, always confirm SCH with repeat testing in 2 to 3 months.

In the event you and your patient elect to treat SCH, guidelines and trials generally support a low initial daily dose of 25 to 50 mcg of levothyroxine (T4), followed with dose changes­ every 4 to 8 weeks and a goal of normalizing TSH to within the lower half of the reference range (0.4-2.5 mIU/L).¹⁴ This is generally similar to published treatment goals for primary hypothyroidism and is based on studies suggesting the lower half of the reference range is normal for young, healthy, euthyroid individuals.³² Though full replacement doses (1.6-1.8 mcg/kg of ideal body weight) can be started for those who are elderly or who have ischemic heart disease or angina, this approach should be avoided in favor of low-dose initial therapy.³³ Thyroid supplements are best absorbed when taken apart from food, calcium, or iron supplements. The ATA suggests taking thyroid medication 60 minutes before breakfast or at bedtime (3 or more hours after the evening meal).³³

Continue to: Screening guidelines differ

Lacking population-level screening data from RCTs, most organizations do not recommend screening for thyroid dysfunction or they note insufficient evidence to make a screening recommendation (TABLE 2^17,19,20,34). In their most recent recommendation statement on the subject in 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded the current evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against thyroid dysfunction screening in nonpregnant, asymptomatic adults.¹⁷ This differs from the ATA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE; formerly known as the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists), which both recommend targeted screening for thyroid dysfunction based on symptoms or risk factors.²⁰

What about subclinical hypothyroidism in pregnancy?

Overt hypothyroidism is associated with adverse events during pregnancy and with subsequent neurodevelopmental complications in children, although the effects of SCH during pregnancy remain less certain. Concerns have been raised over the potential association of SCH with pregnancy loss, placental abruption, premature rupture of membranes, and neonatal death.³⁵ Historically, the prevalence of SCH during pregnancy has ranged from 2% to 2.5%, but using lower trimester-based TSH reference ranges, the prevalence of SCH in pregnancy may be as high as 15%.³⁵

Guided by a large RCT that failed to find benefit (pregnancy outcomes, neurodevelopmental outcomes in children) following treatment of SCH in pregnancy,³⁶ the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends against routine screening for thyroid disease in pregnancy.³⁴ The ATA notes insufficient evidence to rec-ommend universal screening for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy but recommends targeted screening of those with risk factors.³⁷ Data are conflicting on the benefit of treating known or recently detected SCH on pregnancy outcomes including pregnancy loss.^35,38 As such, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine and the ATA both generally recommend treatment of SCH in pregnant patients, particularly when the TSH is ≥ 4.0 mIU/L and TPOAbs are present.^37,39

^a The ATA, ETA, and NICE have slightly different recommendations when a TSH level = 10 mIU/L. ETA and NICE recommend prioritizing treatment for individuals with this level, while ATA recommends treatment when individual factors are also considered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Family Medicine Medical Librarian Gwen Wilson, MLS, AHIP, for her assistance with literature searches.

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicholas LeFevre, MD, Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri–Columbia School of Medicine, One Hospital Drive, M224 Medical Science Building, Columbia, MO 65212; [email protected]

Meet Dr. A and Dr. M

Dr. A is a 50-year-old family physician who provides prenatal care in a busy practice. She sees patients in eight 4-hour clinic sessions per week and is on inpatient call 1 week out of every 2 months. Dr. A has become disillusioned with her practice. She typically works until 7 pm and arrives home exhausted, with little energy to interact with her family. She spends hours in the evenings and on weekends completing charts and answering phone calls. Dr. A is concerned because she recently gained weight and lacks an established fitness routine. The COVID-19 pandemic made life more difficult as she dealt with the risk of getting infected and the changing recommendations for treatment and prevention. After 20 years of practice, Dr. A wonders whether she should leave clinical medicine.

Dr. M is a single, 32-year-old family physician working at an academic medical center. Dr. M is unhappy in his job, is trying to grow his practice, and views himself as having little impact or autonomy. He finds himself lost while navigating the electronic health record (EHR) and struggles to be efficient in the clinic. Dr. M has multiple administrative responsibilities that require him to work evenings and weekends. Debt from medical school loans also motivates him to moonlight several weekends per month. Over the past few months, Dr. M has become frustrated and discouraged, making his depression more difficult to manage. He feels drained by the time he arrives home, where he lives alone. He has stopped exercising, socializing with friends, and dating. Dr. M often wonders if he is in the wrong profession.

Defining burnout, stress, and wellness

Dr. A and Dr. M are experiencing symptoms of burnout, common to physicians and other health care professionals. Recent studies showed an increase in burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic.^1,2 In a survey using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), approximately 44% of physicians reported at least one symptom of burnout.³ After adjusting for age, gender, relationship status, and hours worked per week, physicians were found to be at greater risk for burnout than nonphysician workers.³ The latest Medscape physician burnout survey found an increase in burnout among US physicians from 42% in 2021 to 47% in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Rates of burnout were even higher among family physicians and other frontline (eg, emergency, infectious disease, and critical care) physicians.¹

Burnout has 3 key dimensions: (1) overwhelming exhaustion; (2) feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job; and (3) a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment.⁴ The MBI is considered the standard tool for research in the field of burnout and has been repeatedly assessed for reliability and validity.⁴ The original MBI includes such items as: “I feel emotionally drained from my work,” “I feel like I’m working too hard on my job,” and “I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally.”⁵

According to the World Health Organization, burnout is an occupational phenomenon associated with chronic work-related stress that is not successfully managed.⁶ This definition emphasizes work stress as the cause of burnout, thus highlighting the importance of addressing the work environment.⁷ Physician burnout can affect physician health and wellness and the quality of patient care.^8-13 Because of the cost of burnout to individuals and the health care system, it is important to understand stressors that can lead to physician burnout.

Stress has been described as “physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension … when a person perceives that demands exceed the personal and social resources the individual is able to mobilize.”¹⁴ Work-related sources of stress affecting practicing physicians include long workdays, multiple bureaucratic tasks, lack of autonomy/control, and complex patients.^1,15

The COVID-19 pandemic is a stressor that increased physicians’ exposure to patient suffering and deaths and physicians’ vulnerability to disease at work.¹⁶ Physicians taking care of patients with COVID-19 risk infection and the possibility of infecting others.Online health records are another source of stress for many physicians.^17,18 Access to online health records on personal devices can blur the line between work and home. For each hour of direct patient contact, a physician spends an additional 2 hours interacting with an EHR.¹⁹ Among family physicians and other primary care physicians, increased EHR interaction outside clinic hours has been associated with decreased workplace satisfaction and increased rates of burnout.^11,19,20 Time spent on non-patient-facing clinical tasks, such as peer-to-peer reviews and billing queries, contributes more to burnout than clinic time alone.¹⁷

Continue to: These and other organizational factors...

A physician burnout survey found an increase in burnout among US physicians from 42% in 2021 to 47% in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These and other organizational factors contribute to the stress experienced by physicians. Many describe themselves as feeling consumed by their work. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians (and the rest of the health care team) had to quickly­ learn how to conduct virtual office visits. Clerical responsibilities increased as patients relied more on patient portals and telephone calls to receive care.

Who is predisposed to burnout? Although burnout is a work-related syndrome, studies have shown an increase in burnout associated with individual (ie, personal) factors. For example, female physicians have been shown to have higher rates of burnout compared with male physicians.^1,3 The stress of balancing the demands of the profession can begin during medical school and residency, with younger physicians having nearly­ twice the risk for stress-related symptoms when compared with older colleagues.^15,20-23 Having a child younger than 21 years old, and other personal factors related to balancing family and life demands, increases the likelihood of burnout.^11,21,22

Physicians with certain personality types and predispositions are at increased risk for burnout.^23-25 For example, neuroticism on the Big Five Personality Inventory (one of the most well-known of the psychology inventories) is associated with an increased risk for burnout. Neuroticism may manifest as sadness or related emotional dysregulation (eg, irritability, anxiety).²⁶ Other traits measured by the Big Five Personality Inventory include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.²⁶

Physicians who were depressed were more likely to experience burnout symptoms (87.5%); however, only 26.2% of physicians experiencing burnout were diagnosed as having depression.

A history of depression is also associated with an increased risk for burnout.²⁷ Although depression and burnout are separate conditions, a 2016 study found significant overlap between the two.²⁷ Physicians in this study who were depressed were more likely to experience burnout symptoms (87.5%); however, only 26.2% of physicians experiencing burnout were diagnosed as having depression.²⁷ Rates of depression are higher among physicians when compared with nonphysicians, yet physicians are less likely to seek help due to fear of stigma and potential licensing concerns.^28,29 Because of this, when physicians experience depressive symptoms, they may respond by working harder rather than seeking professional counseling or emotional support. They might believe that “asking for help is a sign of weakness,” thus sacrificing their wellness.

Wellness encompasses a sense of thriving characterized by thoughts and feelings of contentment, joy, and fulfillment—and the absence of severe distress.³⁰ Wellness is a multifaceted condition that includes physical, psychological, and social aspects of an individual’s personal and professional life. Individuals experience a sense of wellness when they nurture their physical selves, minds, and relationships. People experience a sense of wellness when they balance their schedules, eat well, and maintain physical activity. Making time to enjoy family and friends also contributes to wellness.

Continue to: The culture of medicine often rewards...

The culture of medicine often rewards physician attitudes and behaviors that detract from wellness.³¹ Physicians internalize the culture of medicine that promotes perfectionism and downplays personal vulnerability.³² Physicians are reluctant to protect and preserve their wellness, believing self-sacrifice makes them good doctors. Physicians may spend countless hours counseling patients on the importance of wellness, but then work when ill or neglect their personal health needs and self-care—potentially decreasing their resilience and increasing the risk for burnout.³¹

Two paths to managing stress and preventing burnout

Patel and colleagues distinguish between 2 burnout intervention categories: (1) those that focus on individual physicians and (2) those that focus on the organizational environment.³³ We find these distinctions useful and offer strategies for enhancing individual physician wellness (TABLE 1^34-41). Similar to West and colleagues,¹¹ we offer strategies for addressing organizational sources of stress (TABLE 2^42-48). The following text describes these burnout intervention categories, emphasizing increasing self-care and changes that enable physicians to adapt effectively.

The recommendations outlined in this article are based on published stress and burnout literature, as well as the experiences of the authors. However, the number of randomized controlled studies of interventions aimed at reducing physician stress and burnout is limited. In addition, strategies proposed to reduce burnout in other professions may not address the unique stressors physicians encounter. Hence, our recommendations are limited. We have included interventions that seem optimal for individual physicians and the organizations that employ them.

Individual strategies target physical, psychological, and social wellness

Physician wellness strategies are divided into 3 categories: physical, psychological, and social wellness. Most strategies to improve physical wellness are widely known, evidence based, and recommended to patients by physicians.^34-36 For example, most physicians advise their patients to eat healthy balanced meals, avoid unhealthy foods and beverages, maintain a healthy body weight, get daily exercise and adequate sleep, avoid excessive alcohol use, and abstain from tobacco use. However, discrepancies between physicians’ advice to patients and their own behaviors are common. Simply stated, physicians are well advised to follow their own advice regarding physical self-care.

CBT and mindfulness are key to psychological wellness. Recommendations for enhancing psychological wellness are primarily derived from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness principles and practices.^37,38 CBT has been called the “gold standard” of psychotherapy, based on the breadth of research demonstrating that “no other form of psychotherapy has been shown to be systematically superior to CBT.”³⁹

Continue to: CBT is based on the premise...

CBT is based on the premise that individuals’ thoughts and beliefs largely determine how they feel (emotions) and act (behaviors). Certain thoughts lead to positive feelings and effective behaviors, while others lead to negative feelings and less effective behaviors. For example, when a physician has self-critical or helpless thoughts (eg, “I’m just no good at managing my life”), they are more likely to feel unhappy and abandon problem-solving. In contrast, when a physician has self-affirming or hopeful thoughts (eg, “This is difficult, but I have the personal resources to succeed”), they are more likely to feel confident and act to solve problems.

Physicians vacillate between these thoughts and beliefs, and their emotions and behaviors follow accordingly. When hyper-focused on “the hassles of medicine,” physicians feel defeated, depressed, and anxious about their work. In contrast, when physicians recognize and challenge problematic thoughts and focus on what they love about medicine, they feel good and interact with patients and coworkers in positive and self-reinforcing ways.

Mindfulness can help reduce psychological stress and increase personal fulfillment. Mindfulness is characterized as being in the present moment, fully accepting “what is,” and having a sense of gratitude and compassion for self and others.⁴⁰ In practice, mindfulness involves being intentional.

Dahl and colleagues⁴¹ describe a framework for human flourishing that includes 4 core dimensions of well-being (awareness, insight, connection, and purpose) that are all closely linked to mindful, intentional living. Based on their work, it is apparent that those who maintain a “heightened and flexible attentiveness” to their thoughts and feelings are likely to benefit by experiencing “improved mental health and psychological well-being.”⁴¹

However, the utility of CBT and mindfulness practices depends on receptivity to psychological interventions. Individuals who are not receptive may be hesitant to use these practices or likely will not benefit from them. Given these limitations of behavioral interventions, it would be helpful if more attention were paid to preventing and managing physician stress and burnout, especially through research focused on organizational changes.

Continue to: Supportive relationships are powerful

Supportive relationships are powerful. Finally, to enhance social wellness, it would be difficult to overstate the potential benefits of positive, supportive, close relationships.⁴² However, the demands of a career in medicine, starting in medical school, have the potential for inhibiting (rather than enhancing) close relationships.

Placing value on relationships with friends and family members is essential. As Dr. M began experiencing burnout, he felt increasingly lonely, yet he isolated himself from those who cared about him. Dr. A felt lonely at home, even though she was surrounded by family. Physicians are often reluctant to initiate vulnerable communication with others, believing “no one wants to hear about my problems.” However, by realizing the need for help and asking friends and family for emotional support, physicians can improve their wellness. Fostering supportive relationships can help provide the resilience needed to address organizational stressors.

Tackling organizational challenges

Long hours and pressure to see large numbers of patients (production demands) are a challenge across practice settings. Limiting work hours has been effective in improving the well-being of physician trainees but has had an inconsistent effect on burnout.^43,44

Organizations can offer flexible scheduling, and physicians considering limiting work hours may switch to part-time status or shift work. However, decreasing work hours may have the unintended consequence of increased stress as some physicians feel pressure to do more in less time.⁴⁵ Therefore, it’s important to set clear boundaries around work time and when and where work tasks are completed (eg, home vs office).

How we use technology matters. Given­ technology’s ever-increasing role in medicine, organizations must identify and use the most efficient, effective technology for managing clerical processes. When physicians participate in these decisions and share their experiences, technology is likely to be more user-friendly and impose less stress.⁴⁶

Continue to: If technology contributes to stress...

When physicians recognize and challenge problematic thoughts and focus on what they love about medicine, they feel good and interact with patients and coworkers in positive ways.

If technology contributes to stress by being too complex or impractical, it’s important to identify individuals in the workplace (eg, IT support or “super-users”) to help address these challenges. Organizations can implement multidisciplinary teams to address EHR challenges and decrease physician stress and burnout by training support staff to assist with clerical duties, allowing physicians to focus on patient care.^47,48 Such organizational-­directed interventions will be most successful when physicians are included in the decision-making process.⁴⁷

Take on leadership roles to influence change. Leadership may be formal (involving a title and authority) or informal (leading by example). Health care organizations that are committed to the well-being of physicians will make the effort to improve the systems in which physicians work. Physicians working in organizations that are reluctant to change have several choices: implement individual strategies, take on leadership roles to influence change, or reconsider their fit for the organization. Physicians in solo practice might consider joining others in solo practices to share systems (call, phone triage, technical resources, etc) to implement some of these interventions.

Dr. A and Dr. M implement new wellness strategies

Dr. A and Dr. M have recently committed to addressing stressors in their lives and improving their wellness. Dr. A has become more assertive at work, highlighting her need for additional resources to function effectively. In response, her practice has hired scribes to assist in documenting visits. This success has inspired Dr. A to pay attention to her lifestyle choices. Gradually, she has begun to exercise and engage in healthy eating.

Dr. M has begun to utilize resources at his medical center to improve his EHR efficiency and patient flow. He has taken steps to address his financial concerns, developing a budget and spending judiciously. He practices mindfulness and ensures that he gets at least 7 hours of sleep per night, improving his mental and physical health. By doing so, he has more energy to connect with friends, ­exercise, and date.

CORRESPONDENCE
Margaret L. Smith, MD, MPH, MHSA, KUMC, Family Medicine and Community Health, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard – Mailstop 4010, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

Meet Dr. A and Dr. M

Dr. A is a 50-year-old family physician who provides prenatal care in a busy practice. She sees patients in eight 4-hour clinic sessions per week and is on inpatient call 1 week out of every 2 months. Dr. A has become disillusioned with her practice. She typically works until 7 pm and arrives home exhausted, with little energy to interact with her family. She spends hours in the evenings and on weekends completing charts and answering phone calls. Dr. A is concerned because she recently gained weight and lacks an established fitness routine. The COVID-19 pandemic made life more difficult as she dealt with the risk of getting infected and the changing recommendations for treatment and prevention. After 20 years of practice, Dr. A wonders whether she should leave clinical medicine.

Dr. M is a single, 32-year-old family physician working at an academic medical center. Dr. M is unhappy in his job, is trying to grow his practice, and views himself as having little impact or autonomy. He finds himself lost while navigating the electronic health record (EHR) and struggles to be efficient in the clinic. Dr. M has multiple administrative responsibilities that require him to work evenings and weekends. Debt from medical school loans also motivates him to moonlight several weekends per month. Over the past few months, Dr. M has become frustrated and discouraged, making his depression more difficult to manage. He feels drained by the time he arrives home, where he lives alone. He has stopped exercising, socializing with friends, and dating. Dr. M often wonders if he is in the wrong profession.

Defining burnout, stress, and wellness

Dr. A and Dr. M are experiencing symptoms of burnout, common to physicians and other health care professionals. Recent studies showed an increase in burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic.^1,2 In a survey using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), approximately 44% of physicians reported at least one symptom of burnout.³ After adjusting for age, gender, relationship status, and hours worked per week, physicians were found to be at greater risk for burnout than nonphysician workers.³ The latest Medscape physician burnout survey found an increase in burnout among US physicians from 42% in 2021 to 47% in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Rates of burnout were even higher among family physicians and other frontline (eg, emergency, infectious disease, and critical care) physicians.¹

Burnout has 3 key dimensions: (1) overwhelming exhaustion; (2) feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job; and (3) a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment.⁴ The MBI is considered the standard tool for research in the field of burnout and has been repeatedly assessed for reliability and validity.⁴ The original MBI includes such items as: “I feel emotionally drained from my work,” “I feel like I’m working too hard on my job,” and “I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally.”⁵

According to the World Health Organization, burnout is an occupational phenomenon associated with chronic work-related stress that is not successfully managed.⁶ This definition emphasizes work stress as the cause of burnout, thus highlighting the importance of addressing the work environment.⁷ Physician burnout can affect physician health and wellness and the quality of patient care.^8-13 Because of the cost of burnout to individuals and the health care system, it is important to understand stressors that can lead to physician burnout.

Stress has been described as “physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension … when a person perceives that demands exceed the personal and social resources the individual is able to mobilize.”¹⁴ Work-related sources of stress affecting practicing physicians include long workdays, multiple bureaucratic tasks, lack of autonomy/control, and complex patients.^1,15

The COVID-19 pandemic is a stressor that increased physicians’ exposure to patient suffering and deaths and physicians’ vulnerability to disease at work.¹⁶ Physicians taking care of patients with COVID-19 risk infection and the possibility of infecting others.Online health records are another source of stress for many physicians.^17,18 Access to online health records on personal devices can blur the line between work and home. For each hour of direct patient contact, a physician spends an additional 2 hours interacting with an EHR.¹⁹ Among family physicians and other primary care physicians, increased EHR interaction outside clinic hours has been associated with decreased workplace satisfaction and increased rates of burnout.^11,19,20 Time spent on non-patient-facing clinical tasks, such as peer-to-peer reviews and billing queries, contributes more to burnout than clinic time alone.¹⁷

Continue to: These and other organizational factors...

A physician burnout survey found an increase in burnout among US physicians from 42% in 2021 to 47% in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These and other organizational factors contribute to the stress experienced by physicians. Many describe themselves as feeling consumed by their work. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians (and the rest of the health care team) had to quickly­ learn how to conduct virtual office visits. Clerical responsibilities increased as patients relied more on patient portals and telephone calls to receive care.

Who is predisposed to burnout? Although burnout is a work-related syndrome, studies have shown an increase in burnout associated with individual (ie, personal) factors. For example, female physicians have been shown to have higher rates of burnout compared with male physicians.^1,3 The stress of balancing the demands of the profession can begin during medical school and residency, with younger physicians having nearly­ twice the risk for stress-related symptoms when compared with older colleagues.^15,20-23 Having a child younger than 21 years old, and other personal factors related to balancing family and life demands, increases the likelihood of burnout.^11,21,22

Physicians with certain personality types and predispositions are at increased risk for burnout.^23-25 For example, neuroticism on the Big Five Personality Inventory (one of the most well-known of the psychology inventories) is associated with an increased risk for burnout. Neuroticism may manifest as sadness or related emotional dysregulation (eg, irritability, anxiety).²⁶ Other traits measured by the Big Five Personality Inventory include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.²⁶

Physicians who were depressed were more likely to experience burnout symptoms (87.5%); however, only 26.2% of physicians experiencing burnout were diagnosed as having depression.

A history of depression is also associated with an increased risk for burnout.²⁷ Although depression and burnout are separate conditions, a 2016 study found significant overlap between the two.²⁷ Physicians in this study who were depressed were more likely to experience burnout symptoms (87.5%); however, only 26.2% of physicians experiencing burnout were diagnosed as having depression.²⁷ Rates of depression are higher among physicians when compared with nonphysicians, yet physicians are less likely to seek help due to fear of stigma and potential licensing concerns.^28,29 Because of this, when physicians experience depressive symptoms, they may respond by working harder rather than seeking professional counseling or emotional support. They might believe that “asking for help is a sign of weakness,” thus sacrificing their wellness.

Wellness encompasses a sense of thriving characterized by thoughts and feelings of contentment, joy, and fulfillment—and the absence of severe distress.³⁰ Wellness is a multifaceted condition that includes physical, psychological, and social aspects of an individual’s personal and professional life. Individuals experience a sense of wellness when they nurture their physical selves, minds, and relationships. People experience a sense of wellness when they balance their schedules, eat well, and maintain physical activity. Making time to enjoy family and friends also contributes to wellness.

Continue to: The culture of medicine often rewards...

The culture of medicine often rewards physician attitudes and behaviors that detract from wellness.³¹ Physicians internalize the culture of medicine that promotes perfectionism and downplays personal vulnerability.³² Physicians are reluctant to protect and preserve their wellness, believing self-sacrifice makes them good doctors. Physicians may spend countless hours counseling patients on the importance of wellness, but then work when ill or neglect their personal health needs and self-care—potentially decreasing their resilience and increasing the risk for burnout.³¹

Two paths to managing stress and preventing burnout

Patel and colleagues distinguish between 2 burnout intervention categories: (1) those that focus on individual physicians and (2) those that focus on the organizational environment.³³ We find these distinctions useful and offer strategies for enhancing individual physician wellness (TABLE 1^34-41). Similar to West and colleagues,¹¹ we offer strategies for addressing organizational sources of stress (TABLE 2^42-48). The following text describes these burnout intervention categories, emphasizing increasing self-care and changes that enable physicians to adapt effectively.

The recommendations outlined in this article are based on published stress and burnout literature, as well as the experiences of the authors. However, the number of randomized controlled studies of interventions aimed at reducing physician stress and burnout is limited. In addition, strategies proposed to reduce burnout in other professions may not address the unique stressors physicians encounter. Hence, our recommendations are limited. We have included interventions that seem optimal for individual physicians and the organizations that employ them.

Individual strategies target physical, psychological, and social wellness

Physician wellness strategies are divided into 3 categories: physical, psychological, and social wellness. Most strategies to improve physical wellness are widely known, evidence based, and recommended to patients by physicians.^34-36 For example, most physicians advise their patients to eat healthy balanced meals, avoid unhealthy foods and beverages, maintain a healthy body weight, get daily exercise and adequate sleep, avoid excessive alcohol use, and abstain from tobacco use. However, discrepancies between physicians’ advice to patients and their own behaviors are common. Simply stated, physicians are well advised to follow their own advice regarding physical self-care.

CBT and mindfulness are key to psychological wellness. Recommendations for enhancing psychological wellness are primarily derived from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness principles and practices.^37,38 CBT has been called the “gold standard” of psychotherapy, based on the breadth of research demonstrating that “no other form of psychotherapy has been shown to be systematically superior to CBT.”³⁹

Continue to: CBT is based on the premise...

CBT is based on the premise that individuals’ thoughts and beliefs largely determine how they feel (emotions) and act (behaviors). Certain thoughts lead to positive feelings and effective behaviors, while others lead to negative feelings and less effective behaviors. For example, when a physician has self-critical or helpless thoughts (eg, “I’m just no good at managing my life”), they are more likely to feel unhappy and abandon problem-solving. In contrast, when a physician has self-affirming or hopeful thoughts (eg, “This is difficult, but I have the personal resources to succeed”), they are more likely to feel confident and act to solve problems.

Physicians vacillate between these thoughts and beliefs, and their emotions and behaviors follow accordingly. When hyper-focused on “the hassles of medicine,” physicians feel defeated, depressed, and anxious about their work. In contrast, when physicians recognize and challenge problematic thoughts and focus on what they love about medicine, they feel good and interact with patients and coworkers in positive and self-reinforcing ways.

Mindfulness can help reduce psychological stress and increase personal fulfillment. Mindfulness is characterized as being in the present moment, fully accepting “what is,” and having a sense of gratitude and compassion for self and others.⁴⁰ In practice, mindfulness involves being intentional.

Dahl and colleagues⁴¹ describe a framework for human flourishing that includes 4 core dimensions of well-being (awareness, insight, connection, and purpose) that are all closely linked to mindful, intentional living. Based on their work, it is apparent that those who maintain a “heightened and flexible attentiveness” to their thoughts and feelings are likely to benefit by experiencing “improved mental health and psychological well-being.”⁴¹

However, the utility of CBT and mindfulness practices depends on receptivity to psychological interventions. Individuals who are not receptive may be hesitant to use these practices or likely will not benefit from them. Given these limitations of behavioral interventions, it would be helpful if more attention were paid to preventing and managing physician stress and burnout, especially through research focused on organizational changes.

Continue to: Supportive relationships are powerful

Supportive relationships are powerful. Finally, to enhance social wellness, it would be difficult to overstate the potential benefits of positive, supportive, close relationships.⁴² However, the demands of a career in medicine, starting in medical school, have the potential for inhibiting (rather than enhancing) close relationships.

Placing value on relationships with friends and family members is essential. As Dr. M began experiencing burnout, he felt increasingly lonely, yet he isolated himself from those who cared about him. Dr. A felt lonely at home, even though she was surrounded by family. Physicians are often reluctant to initiate vulnerable communication with others, believing “no one wants to hear about my problems.” However, by realizing the need for help and asking friends and family for emotional support, physicians can improve their wellness. Fostering supportive relationships can help provide the resilience needed to address organizational stressors.

Tackling organizational challenges

Long hours and pressure to see large numbers of patients (production demands) are a challenge across practice settings. Limiting work hours has been effective in improving the well-being of physician trainees but has had an inconsistent effect on burnout.^43,44

Organizations can offer flexible scheduling, and physicians considering limiting work hours may switch to part-time status or shift work. However, decreasing work hours may have the unintended consequence of increased stress as some physicians feel pressure to do more in less time.⁴⁵ Therefore, it’s important to set clear boundaries around work time and when and where work tasks are completed (eg, home vs office).

How we use technology matters. Given­ technology’s ever-increasing role in medicine, organizations must identify and use the most efficient, effective technology for managing clerical processes. When physicians participate in these decisions and share their experiences, technology is likely to be more user-friendly and impose less stress.⁴⁶

Continue to: If technology contributes to stress...

When physicians recognize and challenge problematic thoughts and focus on what they love about medicine, they feel good and interact with patients and coworkers in positive ways.

If technology contributes to stress by being too complex or impractical, it’s important to identify individuals in the workplace (eg, IT support or “super-users”) to help address these challenges. Organizations can implement multidisciplinary teams to address EHR challenges and decrease physician stress and burnout by training support staff to assist with clerical duties, allowing physicians to focus on patient care.^47,48 Such organizational-­directed interventions will be most successful when physicians are included in the decision-making process.⁴⁷

Take on leadership roles to influence change. Leadership may be formal (involving a title and authority) or informal (leading by example). Health care organizations that are committed to the well-being of physicians will make the effort to improve the systems in which physicians work. Physicians working in organizations that are reluctant to change have several choices: implement individual strategies, take on leadership roles to influence change, or reconsider their fit for the organization. Physicians in solo practice might consider joining others in solo practices to share systems (call, phone triage, technical resources, etc) to implement some of these interventions.

Dr. A and Dr. M implement new wellness strategies

Dr. A and Dr. M have recently committed to addressing stressors in their lives and improving their wellness. Dr. A has become more assertive at work, highlighting her need for additional resources to function effectively. In response, her practice has hired scribes to assist in documenting visits. This success has inspired Dr. A to pay attention to her lifestyle choices. Gradually, she has begun to exercise and engage in healthy eating.

Dr. M has begun to utilize resources at his medical center to improve his EHR efficiency and patient flow. He has taken steps to address his financial concerns, developing a budget and spending judiciously. He practices mindfulness and ensures that he gets at least 7 hours of sleep per night, improving his mental and physical health. By doing so, he has more energy to connect with friends, ­exercise, and date.

CORRESPONDENCE
Margaret L. Smith, MD, MPH, MHSA, KUMC, Family Medicine and Community Health, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard – Mailstop 4010, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]

Meet Dr. A and Dr. M

Dr. A is a 50-year-old family physician who provides prenatal care in a busy practice. She sees patients in eight 4-hour clinic sessions per week and is on inpatient call 1 week out of every 2 months. Dr. A has become disillusioned with her practice. She typically works until 7 pm and arrives home exhausted, with little energy to interact with her family. She spends hours in the evenings and on weekends completing charts and answering phone calls. Dr. A is concerned because she recently gained weight and lacks an established fitness routine. The COVID-19 pandemic made life more difficult as she dealt with the risk of getting infected and the changing recommendations for treatment and prevention. After 20 years of practice, Dr. A wonders whether she should leave clinical medicine.

Dr. M is a single, 32-year-old family physician working at an academic medical center. Dr. M is unhappy in his job, is trying to grow his practice, and views himself as having little impact or autonomy. He finds himself lost while navigating the electronic health record (EHR) and struggles to be efficient in the clinic. Dr. M has multiple administrative responsibilities that require him to work evenings and weekends. Debt from medical school loans also motivates him to moonlight several weekends per month. Over the past few months, Dr. M has become frustrated and discouraged, making his depression more difficult to manage. He feels drained by the time he arrives home, where he lives alone. He has stopped exercising, socializing with friends, and dating. Dr. M often wonders if he is in the wrong profession.

Defining burnout, stress, and wellness

Dr. A and Dr. M are experiencing symptoms of burnout, common to physicians and other health care professionals. Recent studies showed an increase in burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic.^1,2 In a survey using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), approximately 44% of physicians reported at least one symptom of burnout.³ After adjusting for age, gender, relationship status, and hours worked per week, physicians were found to be at greater risk for burnout than nonphysician workers.³ The latest Medscape physician burnout survey found an increase in burnout among US physicians from 42% in 2021 to 47% in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Rates of burnout were even higher among family physicians and other frontline (eg, emergency, infectious disease, and critical care) physicians.¹

Burnout has 3 key dimensions: (1) overwhelming exhaustion; (2) feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job; and (3) a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment.⁴ The MBI is considered the standard tool for research in the field of burnout and has been repeatedly assessed for reliability and validity.⁴ The original MBI includes such items as: “I feel emotionally drained from my work,” “I feel like I’m working too hard on my job,” and “I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally.”⁵

According to the World Health Organization, burnout is an occupational phenomenon associated with chronic work-related stress that is not successfully managed.⁶ This definition emphasizes work stress as the cause of burnout, thus highlighting the importance of addressing the work environment.⁷ Physician burnout can affect physician health and wellness and the quality of patient care.^8-13 Because of the cost of burnout to individuals and the health care system, it is important to understand stressors that can lead to physician burnout.

Stress has been described as “physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension … when a person perceives that demands exceed the personal and social resources the individual is able to mobilize.”¹⁴ Work-related sources of stress affecting practicing physicians include long workdays, multiple bureaucratic tasks, lack of autonomy/control, and complex patients.^1,15

The COVID-19 pandemic is a stressor that increased physicians’ exposure to patient suffering and deaths and physicians’ vulnerability to disease at work.¹⁶ Physicians taking care of patients with COVID-19 risk infection and the possibility of infecting others.Online health records are another source of stress for many physicians.^17,18 Access to online health records on personal devices can blur the line between work and home. For each hour of direct patient contact, a physician spends an additional 2 hours interacting with an EHR.¹⁹ Among family physicians and other primary care physicians, increased EHR interaction outside clinic hours has been associated with decreased workplace satisfaction and increased rates of burnout.^11,19,20 Time spent on non-patient-facing clinical tasks, such as peer-to-peer reviews and billing queries, contributes more to burnout than clinic time alone.¹⁷

Continue to: These and other organizational factors...

A physician burnout survey found an increase in burnout among US physicians from 42% in 2021 to 47% in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These and other organizational factors contribute to the stress experienced by physicians. Many describe themselves as feeling consumed by their work. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians (and the rest of the health care team) had to quickly­ learn how to conduct virtual office visits. Clerical responsibilities increased as patients relied more on patient portals and telephone calls to receive care.

Who is predisposed to burnout? Although burnout is a work-related syndrome, studies have shown an increase in burnout associated with individual (ie, personal) factors. For example, female physicians have been shown to have higher rates of burnout compared with male physicians.^1,3 The stress of balancing the demands of the profession can begin during medical school and residency, with younger physicians having nearly­ twice the risk for stress-related symptoms when compared with older colleagues.^15,20-23 Having a child younger than 21 years old, and other personal factors related to balancing family and life demands, increases the likelihood of burnout.^11,21,22

Physicians with certain personality types and predispositions are at increased risk for burnout.^23-25 For example, neuroticism on the Big Five Personality Inventory (one of the most well-known of the psychology inventories) is associated with an increased risk for burnout. Neuroticism may manifest as sadness or related emotional dysregulation (eg, irritability, anxiety).²⁶ Other traits measured by the Big Five Personality Inventory include extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience.²⁶

Physicians who were depressed were more likely to experience burnout symptoms (87.5%); however, only 26.2% of physicians experiencing burnout were diagnosed as having depression.

A history of depression is also associated with an increased risk for burnout.²⁷ Although depression and burnout are separate conditions, a 2016 study found significant overlap between the two.²⁷ Physicians in this study who were depressed were more likely to experience burnout symptoms (87.5%); however, only 26.2% of physicians experiencing burnout were diagnosed as having depression.²⁷ Rates of depression are higher among physicians when compared with nonphysicians, yet physicians are less likely to seek help due to fear of stigma and potential licensing concerns.^28,29 Because of this, when physicians experience depressive symptoms, they may respond by working harder rather than seeking professional counseling or emotional support. They might believe that “asking for help is a sign of weakness,” thus sacrificing their wellness.

Wellness encompasses a sense of thriving characterized by thoughts and feelings of contentment, joy, and fulfillment—and the absence of severe distress.³⁰ Wellness is a multifaceted condition that includes physical, psychological, and social aspects of an individual’s personal and professional life. Individuals experience a sense of wellness when they nurture their physical selves, minds, and relationships. People experience a sense of wellness when they balance their schedules, eat well, and maintain physical activity. Making time to enjoy family and friends also contributes to wellness.

Continue to: The culture of medicine often rewards...

The culture of medicine often rewards physician attitudes and behaviors that detract from wellness.³¹ Physicians internalize the culture of medicine that promotes perfectionism and downplays personal vulnerability.³² Physicians are reluctant to protect and preserve their wellness, believing self-sacrifice makes them good doctors. Physicians may spend countless hours counseling patients on the importance of wellness, but then work when ill or neglect their personal health needs and self-care—potentially decreasing their resilience and increasing the risk for burnout.³¹

Two paths to managing stress and preventing burnout

Patel and colleagues distinguish between 2 burnout intervention categories: (1) those that focus on individual physicians and (2) those that focus on the organizational environment.³³ We find these distinctions useful and offer strategies for enhancing individual physician wellness (TABLE 1^34-41). Similar to West and colleagues,¹¹ we offer strategies for addressing organizational sources of stress (TABLE 2^42-48). The following text describes these burnout intervention categories, emphasizing increasing self-care and changes that enable physicians to adapt effectively.

The recommendations outlined in this article are based on published stress and burnout literature, as well as the experiences of the authors. However, the number of randomized controlled studies of interventions aimed at reducing physician stress and burnout is limited. In addition, strategies proposed to reduce burnout in other professions may not address the unique stressors physicians encounter. Hence, our recommendations are limited. We have included interventions that seem optimal for individual physicians and the organizations that employ them.

Individual strategies target physical, psychological, and social wellness

Physician wellness strategies are divided into 3 categories: physical, psychological, and social wellness. Most strategies to improve physical wellness are widely known, evidence based, and recommended to patients by physicians.^34-36 For example, most physicians advise their patients to eat healthy balanced meals, avoid unhealthy foods and beverages, maintain a healthy body weight, get daily exercise and adequate sleep, avoid excessive alcohol use, and abstain from tobacco use. However, discrepancies between physicians’ advice to patients and their own behaviors are common. Simply stated, physicians are well advised to follow their own advice regarding physical self-care.

CBT and mindfulness are key to psychological wellness. Recommendations for enhancing psychological wellness are primarily derived from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness principles and practices.^37,38 CBT has been called the “gold standard” of psychotherapy, based on the breadth of research demonstrating that “no other form of psychotherapy has been shown to be systematically superior to CBT.”³⁹

Continue to: CBT is based on the premise...

CBT is based on the premise that individuals’ thoughts and beliefs largely determine how they feel (emotions) and act (behaviors). Certain thoughts lead to positive feelings and effective behaviors, while others lead to negative feelings and less effective behaviors. For example, when a physician has self-critical or helpless thoughts (eg, “I’m just no good at managing my life”), they are more likely to feel unhappy and abandon problem-solving. In contrast, when a physician has self-affirming or hopeful thoughts (eg, “This is difficult, but I have the personal resources to succeed”), they are more likely to feel confident and act to solve problems.

Physicians vacillate between these thoughts and beliefs, and their emotions and behaviors follow accordingly. When hyper-focused on “the hassles of medicine,” physicians feel defeated, depressed, and anxious about their work. In contrast, when physicians recognize and challenge problematic thoughts and focus on what they love about medicine, they feel good and interact with patients and coworkers in positive and self-reinforcing ways.

Mindfulness can help reduce psychological stress and increase personal fulfillment. Mindfulness is characterized as being in the present moment, fully accepting “what is,” and having a sense of gratitude and compassion for self and others.⁴⁰ In practice, mindfulness involves being intentional.

Dahl and colleagues⁴¹ describe a framework for human flourishing that includes 4 core dimensions of well-being (awareness, insight, connection, and purpose) that are all closely linked to mindful, intentional living. Based on their work, it is apparent that those who maintain a “heightened and flexible attentiveness” to their thoughts and feelings are likely to benefit by experiencing “improved mental health and psychological well-being.”⁴¹

However, the utility of CBT and mindfulness practices depends on receptivity to psychological interventions. Individuals who are not receptive may be hesitant to use these practices or likely will not benefit from them. Given these limitations of behavioral interventions, it would be helpful if more attention were paid to preventing and managing physician stress and burnout, especially through research focused on organizational changes.

Continue to: Supportive relationships are powerful

Supportive relationships are powerful. Finally, to enhance social wellness, it would be difficult to overstate the potential benefits of positive, supportive, close relationships.⁴² However, the demands of a career in medicine, starting in medical school, have the potential for inhibiting (rather than enhancing) close relationships.

Placing value on relationships with friends and family members is essential. As Dr. M began experiencing burnout, he felt increasingly lonely, yet he isolated himself from those who cared about him. Dr. A felt lonely at home, even though she was surrounded by family. Physicians are often reluctant to initiate vulnerable communication with others, believing “no one wants to hear about my problems.” However, by realizing the need for help and asking friends and family for emotional support, physicians can improve their wellness. Fostering supportive relationships can help provide the resilience needed to address organizational stressors.

Tackling organizational challenges

Long hours and pressure to see large numbers of patients (production demands) are a challenge across practice settings. Limiting work hours has been effective in improving the well-being of physician trainees but has had an inconsistent effect on burnout.^43,44

Organizations can offer flexible scheduling, and physicians considering limiting work hours may switch to part-time status or shift work. However, decreasing work hours may have the unintended consequence of increased stress as some physicians feel pressure to do more in less time.⁴⁵ Therefore, it’s important to set clear boundaries around work time and when and where work tasks are completed (eg, home vs office).

How we use technology matters. Given­ technology’s ever-increasing role in medicine, organizations must identify and use the most efficient, effective technology for managing clerical processes. When physicians participate in these decisions and share their experiences, technology is likely to be more user-friendly and impose less stress.⁴⁶

Continue to: If technology contributes to stress...

When physicians recognize and challenge problematic thoughts and focus on what they love about medicine, they feel good and interact with patients and coworkers in positive ways.

If technology contributes to stress by being too complex or impractical, it’s important to identify individuals in the workplace (eg, IT support or “super-users”) to help address these challenges. Organizations can implement multidisciplinary teams to address EHR challenges and decrease physician stress and burnout by training support staff to assist with clerical duties, allowing physicians to focus on patient care.^47,48 Such organizational-­directed interventions will be most successful when physicians are included in the decision-making process.⁴⁷

Take on leadership roles to influence change. Leadership may be formal (involving a title and authority) or informal (leading by example). Health care organizations that are committed to the well-being of physicians will make the effort to improve the systems in which physicians work. Physicians working in organizations that are reluctant to change have several choices: implement individual strategies, take on leadership roles to influence change, or reconsider their fit for the organization. Physicians in solo practice might consider joining others in solo practices to share systems (call, phone triage, technical resources, etc) to implement some of these interventions.

Dr. A and Dr. M implement new wellness strategies

Dr. A and Dr. M have recently committed to addressing stressors in their lives and improving their wellness. Dr. A has become more assertive at work, highlighting her need for additional resources to function effectively. In response, her practice has hired scribes to assist in documenting visits. This success has inspired Dr. A to pay attention to her lifestyle choices. Gradually, she has begun to exercise and engage in healthy eating.

Dr. M has begun to utilize resources at his medical center to improve his EHR efficiency and patient flow. He has taken steps to address his financial concerns, developing a budget and spending judiciously. He practices mindfulness and ensures that he gets at least 7 hours of sleep per night, improving his mental and physical health. By doing so, he has more energy to connect with friends, ­exercise, and date.

CORRESPONDENCE
Margaret L. Smith, MD, MPH, MHSA, KUMC, Family Medicine and Community Health, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard – Mailstop 4010, Kansas City, KS 66160; [email protected]