MDedge Pediatrics

On the heels of the January 2024 announcement by GlaxoSmithKline that its Flovent inhalers are being discontinued, Teva’s recent announcement that it will discontinue U.S. distribution of its Digihaler^® products is adding concern and complication to patients’ and physicians’ efforts to manage asthma symptoms.

“It is unfortunate to hear that more asthma inhalers are being discontinued,” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) President and CEO Kenneth Mendez, said in an interview. The impact of Teva’s June 1 discontinuations of its Digihaler portfolio (ProAir Digihaler, AirDuo Digihaler, and ArmonAir Digihaler), he added, is only partially softened by Teva’s reassurance that its still-available RespiClick devices deliver the same drug formulations via the same devices as the ProAir and AirDuo products — because they lack the innovative digital component. “The Teva Digihaler portfolio had offered an innovative approach to encourage adherence to treatment by integrating a digital solution with an inhaler.”
 

Digital App Companion to Inhaler

The digital components of the AirDuo Digihaler (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol) inhalation powder and ArmonAir Digihaler (fluticasone propionate) inhalation powder, both maintenance inhalers for patients 12-years or older with asthma, include built-in Bluetooth^® wireless technology that connects to a companion mobile app. Their triggers for recording data on inhaler use are either the opening of the inhaler cap or the patient’s inhalation. The devices detect, record, and store data on inhaler use and peak inspiratory flow.

Also, they can remind the patient as to how often the devices have been used, measure inspiratory flow rates, and indicate when inhalation technique may need improvement. Data are then directly sent to the Digihaler app via Bluetooth technology, giving discretion to patients as to whether or not their data will be shared with health care providers.

When patients share their digital inhaler device-recorded data, Teva sources state, providers can more objectively assess the patients’ inhaler use patterns and habits to determine if they are using them as prescribed, and through inspiratory flow rates, judge whether or not patients may need inhaler technique coaching.
 

Possibility for Objective Data

“I was excited about the Digihaler when it was first launched,” said Maureen George, RN, PhD, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, “because it gave very good objective feedback on patients’ inhaler technique through peak inspiratory flow. It showed whether they missed doses or if there were patterns of increased use with increased symptoms.

“Inhaled medications are the only therapy that — if you inaccurately administer them — you don’t actually get any drug, at all,” she said in an interview. “If you don’t get the drug into the target organ, the lungs, you don’t get symptom relief, nor disease remission. Actually, most patients use their devices incorrectly, and most healthcare professionals can’t demonstrate correct delivery technique. At the pharmacy, you’re unlikely to see a real pharmacist, and more likely to see just a cashier. No other product that I know of has offered that degree of sophistication in terms of the different steps of inhaler technique.”
 

CONNECT2: Better Asthma Control at 24 Weeks

Benefits in asthma control for the Digihaler System have been confirmed recently in clinical research. The CONNECT2 trial compared asthma control with the Digihaler System (DS) versus standard of care (SoC) in patients 13 years or older with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 19). Investigators randomized them open-label 4:3 to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint assessment of the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥ 20 or increase from baseline of ≥ 3 units at week 24) revealed an 88.7% higher probability that DS patients would have greater odds of achieving asthma control improvement at week 24, with 35% higher odds of asthma control in the DS group. Also, clinician-participant interactions, mostly addressing poor inhaler technique, were more frequent in the DS group. Six-month adherence was good (68.6%, vs 79.2% at month 1), and reliever use at month 6 was decreased by 38.2% from baseline in the DS group.

Lack of Inhaler Uptake

“It made me sad to hear that it was going away. It’s a device that should have been useful,” Dr. George said, “but the wonderful features that could have come at an individual level or at a population health level just were never realized. I don’t think it was from lack of trying on the company’s part, but when it was launched, insurance companies wouldn’t pay the extra cost that comes with having an integrated electronic monitoring device. They weren’t convinced that the return on investment down the road from improved disease control and fewer very expensive acute hospitalizations was worth it. So the uptake was poor.”

Where does this leave patients? Mr. Mendez stated, “It is imperative that people using Teva’s Digihaler products to treat their asthma reach out to their provider now to determine the best alternative treatment options. Unfortunately, when GSK discontinued Flovent, some people using that inhaler were transitioned to the ArmonAir Digihaler. Also, some formularies do not cover the authorized generic of Flovent, forcing patients to change treatment.”

The AAFA press release of April 15 lists in detail available alternatives to Teva’s discontinued devices, naming quick-relief inhalers and inhaled corticosteroids, noting where dosing, devices, or active ingredients are at variance from the Teva products. The AAFA document also lists and describes inhaler device types (metered dose inhaler, breath actuated inhaler, dry powder inhaler and soft mist inhaler) and their differences in detail.

On the heels of the January 2024 announcement by GlaxoSmithKline that its Flovent inhalers are being discontinued, Teva’s recent announcement that it will discontinue U.S. distribution of its Digihaler^® products is adding concern and complication to patients’ and physicians’ efforts to manage asthma symptoms.

“It is unfortunate to hear that more asthma inhalers are being discontinued,” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) President and CEO Kenneth Mendez, said in an interview. The impact of Teva’s June 1 discontinuations of its Digihaler portfolio (ProAir Digihaler, AirDuo Digihaler, and ArmonAir Digihaler), he added, is only partially softened by Teva’s reassurance that its still-available RespiClick devices deliver the same drug formulations via the same devices as the ProAir and AirDuo products — because they lack the innovative digital component. “The Teva Digihaler portfolio had offered an innovative approach to encourage adherence to treatment by integrating a digital solution with an inhaler.”
 

Digital App Companion to Inhaler

The digital components of the AirDuo Digihaler (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol) inhalation powder and ArmonAir Digihaler (fluticasone propionate) inhalation powder, both maintenance inhalers for patients 12-years or older with asthma, include built-in Bluetooth^® wireless technology that connects to a companion mobile app. Their triggers for recording data on inhaler use are either the opening of the inhaler cap or the patient’s inhalation. The devices detect, record, and store data on inhaler use and peak inspiratory flow.

Also, they can remind the patient as to how often the devices have been used, measure inspiratory flow rates, and indicate when inhalation technique may need improvement. Data are then directly sent to the Digihaler app via Bluetooth technology, giving discretion to patients as to whether or not their data will be shared with health care providers.

When patients share their digital inhaler device-recorded data, Teva sources state, providers can more objectively assess the patients’ inhaler use patterns and habits to determine if they are using them as prescribed, and through inspiratory flow rates, judge whether or not patients may need inhaler technique coaching.
 

Possibility for Objective Data

“I was excited about the Digihaler when it was first launched,” said Maureen George, RN, PhD, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, “because it gave very good objective feedback on patients’ inhaler technique through peak inspiratory flow. It showed whether they missed doses or if there were patterns of increased use with increased symptoms.

“Inhaled medications are the only therapy that — if you inaccurately administer them — you don’t actually get any drug, at all,” she said in an interview. “If you don’t get the drug into the target organ, the lungs, you don’t get symptom relief, nor disease remission. Actually, most patients use their devices incorrectly, and most healthcare professionals can’t demonstrate correct delivery technique. At the pharmacy, you’re unlikely to see a real pharmacist, and more likely to see just a cashier. No other product that I know of has offered that degree of sophistication in terms of the different steps of inhaler technique.”
 

CONNECT2: Better Asthma Control at 24 Weeks

Benefits in asthma control for the Digihaler System have been confirmed recently in clinical research. The CONNECT2 trial compared asthma control with the Digihaler System (DS) versus standard of care (SoC) in patients 13 years or older with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 19). Investigators randomized them open-label 4:3 to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint assessment of the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥ 20 or increase from baseline of ≥ 3 units at week 24) revealed an 88.7% higher probability that DS patients would have greater odds of achieving asthma control improvement at week 24, with 35% higher odds of asthma control in the DS group. Also, clinician-participant interactions, mostly addressing poor inhaler technique, were more frequent in the DS group. Six-month adherence was good (68.6%, vs 79.2% at month 1), and reliever use at month 6 was decreased by 38.2% from baseline in the DS group.

Lack of Inhaler Uptake

“It made me sad to hear that it was going away. It’s a device that should have been useful,” Dr. George said, “but the wonderful features that could have come at an individual level or at a population health level just were never realized. I don’t think it was from lack of trying on the company’s part, but when it was launched, insurance companies wouldn’t pay the extra cost that comes with having an integrated electronic monitoring device. They weren’t convinced that the return on investment down the road from improved disease control and fewer very expensive acute hospitalizations was worth it. So the uptake was poor.”

Where does this leave patients? Mr. Mendez stated, “It is imperative that people using Teva’s Digihaler products to treat their asthma reach out to their provider now to determine the best alternative treatment options. Unfortunately, when GSK discontinued Flovent, some people using that inhaler were transitioned to the ArmonAir Digihaler. Also, some formularies do not cover the authorized generic of Flovent, forcing patients to change treatment.”

The AAFA press release of April 15 lists in detail available alternatives to Teva’s discontinued devices, naming quick-relief inhalers and inhaled corticosteroids, noting where dosing, devices, or active ingredients are at variance from the Teva products. The AAFA document also lists and describes inhaler device types (metered dose inhaler, breath actuated inhaler, dry powder inhaler and soft mist inhaler) and their differences in detail.

On the heels of the January 2024 announcement by GlaxoSmithKline that its Flovent inhalers are being discontinued, Teva’s recent announcement that it will discontinue U.S. distribution of its Digihaler^® products is adding concern and complication to patients’ and physicians’ efforts to manage asthma symptoms.

“It is unfortunate to hear that more asthma inhalers are being discontinued,” Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) President and CEO Kenneth Mendez, said in an interview. The impact of Teva’s June 1 discontinuations of its Digihaler portfolio (ProAir Digihaler, AirDuo Digihaler, and ArmonAir Digihaler), he added, is only partially softened by Teva’s reassurance that its still-available RespiClick devices deliver the same drug formulations via the same devices as the ProAir and AirDuo products — because they lack the innovative digital component. “The Teva Digihaler portfolio had offered an innovative approach to encourage adherence to treatment by integrating a digital solution with an inhaler.”
 

Digital App Companion to Inhaler

The digital components of the AirDuo Digihaler (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol) inhalation powder and ArmonAir Digihaler (fluticasone propionate) inhalation powder, both maintenance inhalers for patients 12-years or older with asthma, include built-in Bluetooth^® wireless technology that connects to a companion mobile app. Their triggers for recording data on inhaler use are either the opening of the inhaler cap or the patient’s inhalation. The devices detect, record, and store data on inhaler use and peak inspiratory flow.

Also, they can remind the patient as to how often the devices have been used, measure inspiratory flow rates, and indicate when inhalation technique may need improvement. Data are then directly sent to the Digihaler app via Bluetooth technology, giving discretion to patients as to whether or not their data will be shared with health care providers.

When patients share their digital inhaler device-recorded data, Teva sources state, providers can more objectively assess the patients’ inhaler use patterns and habits to determine if they are using them as prescribed, and through inspiratory flow rates, judge whether or not patients may need inhaler technique coaching.
 

Possibility for Objective Data

“I was excited about the Digihaler when it was first launched,” said Maureen George, RN, PhD, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, “because it gave very good objective feedback on patients’ inhaler technique through peak inspiratory flow. It showed whether they missed doses or if there were patterns of increased use with increased symptoms.

“Inhaled medications are the only therapy that — if you inaccurately administer them — you don’t actually get any drug, at all,” she said in an interview. “If you don’t get the drug into the target organ, the lungs, you don’t get symptom relief, nor disease remission. Actually, most patients use their devices incorrectly, and most healthcare professionals can’t demonstrate correct delivery technique. At the pharmacy, you’re unlikely to see a real pharmacist, and more likely to see just a cashier. No other product that I know of has offered that degree of sophistication in terms of the different steps of inhaler technique.”
 

CONNECT2: Better Asthma Control at 24 Weeks

Benefits in asthma control for the Digihaler System have been confirmed recently in clinical research. The CONNECT2 trial compared asthma control with the Digihaler System (DS) versus standard of care (SoC) in patients 13 years or older with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 19). Investigators randomized them open-label 4:3 to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint assessment of the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥ 20 or increase from baseline of ≥ 3 units at week 24) revealed an 88.7% higher probability that DS patients would have greater odds of achieving asthma control improvement at week 24, with 35% higher odds of asthma control in the DS group. Also, clinician-participant interactions, mostly addressing poor inhaler technique, were more frequent in the DS group. Six-month adherence was good (68.6%, vs 79.2% at month 1), and reliever use at month 6 was decreased by 38.2% from baseline in the DS group.

Lack of Inhaler Uptake

“It made me sad to hear that it was going away. It’s a device that should have been useful,” Dr. George said, “but the wonderful features that could have come at an individual level or at a population health level just were never realized. I don’t think it was from lack of trying on the company’s part, but when it was launched, insurance companies wouldn’t pay the extra cost that comes with having an integrated electronic monitoring device. They weren’t convinced that the return on investment down the road from improved disease control and fewer very expensive acute hospitalizations was worth it. So the uptake was poor.”

Where does this leave patients? Mr. Mendez stated, “It is imperative that people using Teva’s Digihaler products to treat their asthma reach out to their provider now to determine the best alternative treatment options. Unfortunately, when GSK discontinued Flovent, some people using that inhaler were transitioned to the ArmonAir Digihaler. Also, some formularies do not cover the authorized generic of Flovent, forcing patients to change treatment.”

The AAFA press release of April 15 lists in detail available alternatives to Teva’s discontinued devices, naming quick-relief inhalers and inhaled corticosteroids, noting where dosing, devices, or active ingredients are at variance from the Teva products. The AAFA document also lists and describes inhaler device types (metered dose inhaler, breath actuated inhaler, dry powder inhaler and soft mist inhaler) and their differences in detail.

ASUNCIÓN, PARAGUAY — The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology’s Commission for the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity will soon publish criteria for distinguishing between clinical obesity and other preclinical phases. The criteria are intended to limit the negative connotations and misunderstandings associated with the word obesity and to clearly convey the idea that it is a disease and not just a condition that increases the risk for other pathologies.

One of the two Latin American experts on the 60-member commission, Ricardo Cohen, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Obesity and Diabetes Center at the Oswaldo Cruz German Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, discussed this effort with this news organization.

The proposal being finalized would acknowledge a preclinical stage of obesity characterized by alterations in cells or tissues that lead to changes in organ structure, but not function. This stage can be measured by body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference.

The clinical stage occurs when “obesity already affects [the function of] organs, tissues, and functions like mobility. Here, it is a disease per se. And an active disease requires treatment,” said Dr. Cohen. The health risks associated with excess adiposity have already materialized and can be objectively documented through specific signs and symptoms.

Various experts from Latin America who participated in the XV Congress of the Latin American Obesity Societies (FLASO) and II Paraguayan Obesity Congress expressed to this news organization their reservations about the proposed name change and its practical effects. They highlighted the pros and cons of various terminologies that had been considered in recent years.

“Stigma undoubtedly exists. There’s also no doubt that this stigma and daily pressure on a person’s self-esteem influence behavior and condition a poor future clinical outcome because they promote denial of the disease. Healthcare professionals can make these mistakes. But I’m not sure that changing the name of a known disease will make a difference,” said Rafael Figueredo Grijalba, MD, president of FLASO and director of the Nutrition program at the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Catholic University in Paraguay.

Spotlight on Adiposity 

An alternative term for obesity proposed in 2016 by what is now the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and by the American College of Endocrinology is “adiposity-based chronic disease (ABCD).” This designation “is on the right track,” said Violeta Jiménez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist at the Clinical Hospital of the National University of Asunción and the Comprehensive Diabetes Care Network of the Paraguay Social Security Institute.

The word obese is perceived as an insult, and the health impact of obesity is related to the quantity, distribution, and function of adipose tissue, said Dr. Jiménez. The BMI, the most used parameter in practice to determine overweight and obesity, “does not predict excess adiposity or determine a disease here and now, just as waist circumference does not confirm the condition.” 

Will the public be attracted to ABCD? What disease do these initials refer to, asked Dr. Jiménez. “What I like about the term ABCD is that it is not solely based on weight. It brings up the issue that a person who may not have obesity by BMI has adiposity and therefore has a disease brewing inside them.”

“Any obesity denomination is useful as long as the impact of comorbidities is taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not an aesthetic problem and treatment will be escalated aiming to benefit not only weight loss but also comorbidities,” said Paul Camperos Sánchez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist and head of research at La Trinidad Teaching Medical Center in Caracas, Venezuela, and former president of the Venezuelan Association for the Study of Obesity. 

Dr. Camperos Sánchez added that the classification of overweight and obesity into grades on the basis of BMI, which is recognized by the World Health Organization, “is the most known and for me remains the most comfortable. I will accept any other approach, but in my clinical practice, I continue to do it this way.” 

Fundamentally, knowledge can reduce social stigma and even prejudice from the medical community itself. “We must be respectful and compassionate and understand well what we are treating and the best way to approach each patient with realistic expectations. Evaluate whether, in addition to medication or intensive lifestyle changes, behavioral interventions or physiotherapy are required. If you don’t manage it well and find it challenging, perhaps that’s why we see so much stigmatization or humiliation of the patient. And that has nothing to do with the name [of the disease],” said Dr. Camperos Sánchez.

‘Biological Injustices’

Julio Montero, MD, nutritionist, president of the Argentine Society of Obesity and Eating Disorders, and former president of FLASO, told this news organization that the topic of nomenclatures “provides a lot of grounds for debate,” but he prefers the term “clinical obesity” because it has a medical meaning, is appropriate for statistical purposes, better conveys the concept of obesity as a disease, and distinguishes patients who have high weight or a spherical figure but may be free of weight-dependent conditions.

“Clinical obesity suggests that it is a person with high weight who has health problems and life expectancy issues related to excessive corpulence (weight-fat). The addition of the adjective clinical suggests that the patient has been evaluated by phenotype, fat distribution, hypertension, blood glucose, triglycerides, apnea, cardiac dilation, and mechanical problems, and based on that analysis, the diagnosis has been made,” said Dr. Montero.

Other positive aspects of the designation include not assuming that comorbidities are a direct consequence of adipose tissue accumulation because “lean mass often increases in patients with obesity, and diet and sedentary lifestyle also have an influence” nor does the term exclude people with central obesity. On the other hand, it does not propose a specific weight or fat that defines the disease, just like BMI does (which defines obesity but not its clinical consequences).

Regarding the proposed term ABCD, Montero pointed out that it focuses the diagnosis on the concept that adipose fat and adipocyte function are protagonists of the disease in question, even though there are chronic metabolic diseases like gout, porphyrias, and type 1 diabetes that do not depend on adiposity.

“ABCD also involves some degree of biological injustice, since femorogluteal adiposity (aside from aesthetic problems and excluding possible mechanical effects) is normal and healthy during pregnancy, lactation, growth, or situations of food scarcity risk, among others. Besides, it is an expression that is difficult to interpret for the untrained professional and even more so for communication to the population,” Dr. Montero concluded.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Figueredo Grijalba, Dr. Jiménez, Dr. Camperos Sánchez, and Dr. Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ASUNCIÓN, PARAGUAY — The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology’s Commission for the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity will soon publish criteria for distinguishing between clinical obesity and other preclinical phases. The criteria are intended to limit the negative connotations and misunderstandings associated with the word obesity and to clearly convey the idea that it is a disease and not just a condition that increases the risk for other pathologies.

One of the two Latin American experts on the 60-member commission, Ricardo Cohen, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Obesity and Diabetes Center at the Oswaldo Cruz German Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, discussed this effort with this news organization.

The proposal being finalized would acknowledge a preclinical stage of obesity characterized by alterations in cells or tissues that lead to changes in organ structure, but not function. This stage can be measured by body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference.

The clinical stage occurs when “obesity already affects [the function of] organs, tissues, and functions like mobility. Here, it is a disease per se. And an active disease requires treatment,” said Dr. Cohen. The health risks associated with excess adiposity have already materialized and can be objectively documented through specific signs and symptoms.

Various experts from Latin America who participated in the XV Congress of the Latin American Obesity Societies (FLASO) and II Paraguayan Obesity Congress expressed to this news organization their reservations about the proposed name change and its practical effects. They highlighted the pros and cons of various terminologies that had been considered in recent years.

“Stigma undoubtedly exists. There’s also no doubt that this stigma and daily pressure on a person’s self-esteem influence behavior and condition a poor future clinical outcome because they promote denial of the disease. Healthcare professionals can make these mistakes. But I’m not sure that changing the name of a known disease will make a difference,” said Rafael Figueredo Grijalba, MD, president of FLASO and director of the Nutrition program at the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Catholic University in Paraguay.

Spotlight on Adiposity 

An alternative term for obesity proposed in 2016 by what is now the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and by the American College of Endocrinology is “adiposity-based chronic disease (ABCD).” This designation “is on the right track,” said Violeta Jiménez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist at the Clinical Hospital of the National University of Asunción and the Comprehensive Diabetes Care Network of the Paraguay Social Security Institute.

The word obese is perceived as an insult, and the health impact of obesity is related to the quantity, distribution, and function of adipose tissue, said Dr. Jiménez. The BMI, the most used parameter in practice to determine overweight and obesity, “does not predict excess adiposity or determine a disease here and now, just as waist circumference does not confirm the condition.” 

Will the public be attracted to ABCD? What disease do these initials refer to, asked Dr. Jiménez. “What I like about the term ABCD is that it is not solely based on weight. It brings up the issue that a person who may not have obesity by BMI has adiposity and therefore has a disease brewing inside them.”

“Any obesity denomination is useful as long as the impact of comorbidities is taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not an aesthetic problem and treatment will be escalated aiming to benefit not only weight loss but also comorbidities,” said Paul Camperos Sánchez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist and head of research at La Trinidad Teaching Medical Center in Caracas, Venezuela, and former president of the Venezuelan Association for the Study of Obesity. 

Dr. Camperos Sánchez added that the classification of overweight and obesity into grades on the basis of BMI, which is recognized by the World Health Organization, “is the most known and for me remains the most comfortable. I will accept any other approach, but in my clinical practice, I continue to do it this way.” 

Fundamentally, knowledge can reduce social stigma and even prejudice from the medical community itself. “We must be respectful and compassionate and understand well what we are treating and the best way to approach each patient with realistic expectations. Evaluate whether, in addition to medication or intensive lifestyle changes, behavioral interventions or physiotherapy are required. If you don’t manage it well and find it challenging, perhaps that’s why we see so much stigmatization or humiliation of the patient. And that has nothing to do with the name [of the disease],” said Dr. Camperos Sánchez.

‘Biological Injustices’

Julio Montero, MD, nutritionist, president of the Argentine Society of Obesity and Eating Disorders, and former president of FLASO, told this news organization that the topic of nomenclatures “provides a lot of grounds for debate,” but he prefers the term “clinical obesity” because it has a medical meaning, is appropriate for statistical purposes, better conveys the concept of obesity as a disease, and distinguishes patients who have high weight or a spherical figure but may be free of weight-dependent conditions.

“Clinical obesity suggests that it is a person with high weight who has health problems and life expectancy issues related to excessive corpulence (weight-fat). The addition of the adjective clinical suggests that the patient has been evaluated by phenotype, fat distribution, hypertension, blood glucose, triglycerides, apnea, cardiac dilation, and mechanical problems, and based on that analysis, the diagnosis has been made,” said Dr. Montero.

Other positive aspects of the designation include not assuming that comorbidities are a direct consequence of adipose tissue accumulation because “lean mass often increases in patients with obesity, and diet and sedentary lifestyle also have an influence” nor does the term exclude people with central obesity. On the other hand, it does not propose a specific weight or fat that defines the disease, just like BMI does (which defines obesity but not its clinical consequences).

Regarding the proposed term ABCD, Montero pointed out that it focuses the diagnosis on the concept that adipose fat and adipocyte function are protagonists of the disease in question, even though there are chronic metabolic diseases like gout, porphyrias, and type 1 diabetes that do not depend on adiposity.

“ABCD also involves some degree of biological injustice, since femorogluteal adiposity (aside from aesthetic problems and excluding possible mechanical effects) is normal and healthy during pregnancy, lactation, growth, or situations of food scarcity risk, among others. Besides, it is an expression that is difficult to interpret for the untrained professional and even more so for communication to the population,” Dr. Montero concluded.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Figueredo Grijalba, Dr. Jiménez, Dr. Camperos Sánchez, and Dr. Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ASUNCIÓN, PARAGUAY — The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology’s Commission for the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity will soon publish criteria for distinguishing between clinical obesity and other preclinical phases. The criteria are intended to limit the negative connotations and misunderstandings associated with the word obesity and to clearly convey the idea that it is a disease and not just a condition that increases the risk for other pathologies.

One of the two Latin American experts on the 60-member commission, Ricardo Cohen, MD, PhD, coordinator of the Obesity and Diabetes Center at the Oswaldo Cruz German Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, discussed this effort with this news organization.

The proposal being finalized would acknowledge a preclinical stage of obesity characterized by alterations in cells or tissues that lead to changes in organ structure, but not function. This stage can be measured by body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference.

The clinical stage occurs when “obesity already affects [the function of] organs, tissues, and functions like mobility. Here, it is a disease per se. And an active disease requires treatment,” said Dr. Cohen. The health risks associated with excess adiposity have already materialized and can be objectively documented through specific signs and symptoms.

Various experts from Latin America who participated in the XV Congress of the Latin American Obesity Societies (FLASO) and II Paraguayan Obesity Congress expressed to this news organization their reservations about the proposed name change and its practical effects. They highlighted the pros and cons of various terminologies that had been considered in recent years.

“Stigma undoubtedly exists. There’s also no doubt that this stigma and daily pressure on a person’s self-esteem influence behavior and condition a poor future clinical outcome because they promote denial of the disease. Healthcare professionals can make these mistakes. But I’m not sure that changing the name of a known disease will make a difference,” said Rafael Figueredo Grijalba, MD, president of FLASO and director of the Nutrition program at the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Nuestra Señora de la Asunción Catholic University in Paraguay.

Spotlight on Adiposity 

An alternative term for obesity proposed in 2016 by what is now the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and by the American College of Endocrinology is “adiposity-based chronic disease (ABCD).” This designation “is on the right track,” said Violeta Jiménez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist at the Clinical Hospital of the National University of Asunción and the Comprehensive Diabetes Care Network of the Paraguay Social Security Institute.

The word obese is perceived as an insult, and the health impact of obesity is related to the quantity, distribution, and function of adipose tissue, said Dr. Jiménez. The BMI, the most used parameter in practice to determine overweight and obesity, “does not predict excess adiposity or determine a disease here and now, just as waist circumference does not confirm the condition.” 

Will the public be attracted to ABCD? What disease do these initials refer to, asked Dr. Jiménez. “What I like about the term ABCD is that it is not solely based on weight. It brings up the issue that a person who may not have obesity by BMI has adiposity and therefore has a disease brewing inside them.”

“Any obesity denomination is useful as long as the impact of comorbidities is taken into account, as well as the fact that it is not an aesthetic problem and treatment will be escalated aiming to benefit not only weight loss but also comorbidities,” said Paul Camperos Sánchez, MD, internal medicine and endocrinology specialist and head of research at La Trinidad Teaching Medical Center in Caracas, Venezuela, and former president of the Venezuelan Association for the Study of Obesity. 

Dr. Camperos Sánchez added that the classification of overweight and obesity into grades on the basis of BMI, which is recognized by the World Health Organization, “is the most known and for me remains the most comfortable. I will accept any other approach, but in my clinical practice, I continue to do it this way.” 

Fundamentally, knowledge can reduce social stigma and even prejudice from the medical community itself. “We must be respectful and compassionate and understand well what we are treating and the best way to approach each patient with realistic expectations. Evaluate whether, in addition to medication or intensive lifestyle changes, behavioral interventions or physiotherapy are required. If you don’t manage it well and find it challenging, perhaps that’s why we see so much stigmatization or humiliation of the patient. And that has nothing to do with the name [of the disease],” said Dr. Camperos Sánchez.

‘Biological Injustices’

Julio Montero, MD, nutritionist, president of the Argentine Society of Obesity and Eating Disorders, and former president of FLASO, told this news organization that the topic of nomenclatures “provides a lot of grounds for debate,” but he prefers the term “clinical obesity” because it has a medical meaning, is appropriate for statistical purposes, better conveys the concept of obesity as a disease, and distinguishes patients who have high weight or a spherical figure but may be free of weight-dependent conditions.

“Clinical obesity suggests that it is a person with high weight who has health problems and life expectancy issues related to excessive corpulence (weight-fat). The addition of the adjective clinical suggests that the patient has been evaluated by phenotype, fat distribution, hypertension, blood glucose, triglycerides, apnea, cardiac dilation, and mechanical problems, and based on that analysis, the diagnosis has been made,” said Dr. Montero.

Other positive aspects of the designation include not assuming that comorbidities are a direct consequence of adipose tissue accumulation because “lean mass often increases in patients with obesity, and diet and sedentary lifestyle also have an influence” nor does the term exclude people with central obesity. On the other hand, it does not propose a specific weight or fat that defines the disease, just like BMI does (which defines obesity but not its clinical consequences).

Regarding the proposed term ABCD, Montero pointed out that it focuses the diagnosis on the concept that adipose fat and adipocyte function are protagonists of the disease in question, even though there are chronic metabolic diseases like gout, porphyrias, and type 1 diabetes that do not depend on adiposity.

“ABCD also involves some degree of biological injustice, since femorogluteal adiposity (aside from aesthetic problems and excluding possible mechanical effects) is normal and healthy during pregnancy, lactation, growth, or situations of food scarcity risk, among others. Besides, it is an expression that is difficult to interpret for the untrained professional and even more so for communication to the population,” Dr. Montero concluded.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Figueredo Grijalba, Dr. Jiménez, Dr. Camperos Sánchez, and Dr. Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The number of suicides among US college students has doubled over the past two decades and is now the second-most common cause of death after accidents in this population, a new study by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed deaths between 2002 and 2022, using Poisson regression models to assess changes in incidence rates over time.
• Data were drawn from the NCAA death database, which includes death from any cause, and included demographic characteristics such as age and race and sporting discipline.
• They utilized linear and quadratic fits between year and suicide incidence for men and women.
• Given the low incidence of suicide deaths per year, the incidence rate was multiplied by 100,000 to calculate the incidence per 100,000 athlete-years (AYs).
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1102 total deaths, 11.6% were due to suicide (98 men, 30 women).
• Athletes who died by suicide ranged in age from 17 to 24 years (mean, 20 years) were predominantly men (77%) and White (59%), with the highest suicide incidence rate among male cross-country athletes (1:29 per 815 AYs).
• The overall incidence of suicide was 1:71 per 145 AYs.
• Over the last 10 years, suicide was the second most common cause of death after accidents, with the proportion of deaths by suicide doubling from the first to the second decades (7.6% to 15.3%).
• Among men, the suicide incidence rate increased in a linear fashion (5-year incidence rate ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.53), while among women, a quadratic association was identified (P = .002), with the incidence rate reaching its lowest point in women from 2010 to 2011 and increasing thereafter.

IN PRACTICE:

“Athletes are generally thought of as one of the healthiest populations in our society, yet the pressures of school, internal and external performance expectations, time demands, injury, athletic identity, and physical fatigue can lead to depression, mental health problems, and suicide,” the authors wrote. “Although the rate of suicide among collegiate athletes remains lower than the general population, it is important to recognize the parallel increase to ensure this population is not overlooked when assessing for risk factors and implementing prevention strategies.”

SOURCE:

Bridget M. Whelan, MPH, research scientist in the Department of Family Medicine, Sports Medicine Section, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was the lead and corresponding author on the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There is no mandatory reporting system for athlete deaths in the United States, and investigators’ search identified 16 deaths with unknown causes, suggesting reported suicide incidence rates may be underestimated. Additionally, in cases of overdose that were not clearly intentional, the death was listed as “overdose,” possibly resulting in underreporting of suicide.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The number of suicides among US college students has doubled over the past two decades and is now the second-most common cause of death after accidents in this population, a new study by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed deaths between 2002 and 2022, using Poisson regression models to assess changes in incidence rates over time.
• Data were drawn from the NCAA death database, which includes death from any cause, and included demographic characteristics such as age and race and sporting discipline.
• They utilized linear and quadratic fits between year and suicide incidence for men and women.
• Given the low incidence of suicide deaths per year, the incidence rate was multiplied by 100,000 to calculate the incidence per 100,000 athlete-years (AYs).
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1102 total deaths, 11.6% were due to suicide (98 men, 30 women).
• Athletes who died by suicide ranged in age from 17 to 24 years (mean, 20 years) were predominantly men (77%) and White (59%), with the highest suicide incidence rate among male cross-country athletes (1:29 per 815 AYs).
• The overall incidence of suicide was 1:71 per 145 AYs.
• Over the last 10 years, suicide was the second most common cause of death after accidents, with the proportion of deaths by suicide doubling from the first to the second decades (7.6% to 15.3%).
• Among men, the suicide incidence rate increased in a linear fashion (5-year incidence rate ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.53), while among women, a quadratic association was identified (P = .002), with the incidence rate reaching its lowest point in women from 2010 to 2011 and increasing thereafter.

IN PRACTICE:

“Athletes are generally thought of as one of the healthiest populations in our society, yet the pressures of school, internal and external performance expectations, time demands, injury, athletic identity, and physical fatigue can lead to depression, mental health problems, and suicide,” the authors wrote. “Although the rate of suicide among collegiate athletes remains lower than the general population, it is important to recognize the parallel increase to ensure this population is not overlooked when assessing for risk factors and implementing prevention strategies.”

SOURCE:

Bridget M. Whelan, MPH, research scientist in the Department of Family Medicine, Sports Medicine Section, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was the lead and corresponding author on the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There is no mandatory reporting system for athlete deaths in the United States, and investigators’ search identified 16 deaths with unknown causes, suggesting reported suicide incidence rates may be underestimated. Additionally, in cases of overdose that were not clearly intentional, the death was listed as “overdose,” possibly resulting in underreporting of suicide.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The number of suicides among US college students has doubled over the past two decades and is now the second-most common cause of death after accidents in this population, a new study by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed deaths between 2002 and 2022, using Poisson regression models to assess changes in incidence rates over time.
• Data were drawn from the NCAA death database, which includes death from any cause, and included demographic characteristics such as age and race and sporting discipline.
• They utilized linear and quadratic fits between year and suicide incidence for men and women.
• Given the low incidence of suicide deaths per year, the incidence rate was multiplied by 100,000 to calculate the incidence per 100,000 athlete-years (AYs).
•  

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1102 total deaths, 11.6% were due to suicide (98 men, 30 women).
• Athletes who died by suicide ranged in age from 17 to 24 years (mean, 20 years) were predominantly men (77%) and White (59%), with the highest suicide incidence rate among male cross-country athletes (1:29 per 815 AYs).
• The overall incidence of suicide was 1:71 per 145 AYs.
• Over the last 10 years, suicide was the second most common cause of death after accidents, with the proportion of deaths by suicide doubling from the first to the second decades (7.6% to 15.3%).
• Among men, the suicide incidence rate increased in a linear fashion (5-year incidence rate ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.53), while among women, a quadratic association was identified (P = .002), with the incidence rate reaching its lowest point in women from 2010 to 2011 and increasing thereafter.

IN PRACTICE:

“Athletes are generally thought of as one of the healthiest populations in our society, yet the pressures of school, internal and external performance expectations, time demands, injury, athletic identity, and physical fatigue can lead to depression, mental health problems, and suicide,” the authors wrote. “Although the rate of suicide among collegiate athletes remains lower than the general population, it is important to recognize the parallel increase to ensure this population is not overlooked when assessing for risk factors and implementing prevention strategies.”

SOURCE:

Bridget M. Whelan, MPH, research scientist in the Department of Family Medicine, Sports Medicine Section, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, was the lead and corresponding author on the study, which was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There is no mandatory reporting system for athlete deaths in the United States, and investigators’ search identified 16 deaths with unknown causes, suggesting reported suicide incidence rates may be underestimated. Additionally, in cases of overdose that were not clearly intentional, the death was listed as “overdose,” possibly resulting in underreporting of suicide.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

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

TOPLINE:

Most children and adolescents with chronic skin disorders may experience stigma, which is strongly associated with reduced quality of life (QOL) and childhood depression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Stigmatization has been addressed for several chronic medical conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, obesity, and mental illness; however, it has received limited attention in children living with chronic skin disorders.
• This cross-sectional, single-visit study examined the prevalence of stigma, its dependence on disease visibility and severity, and its association with mental health and QoL in children with chronic skin disorders.
• A total of 1671 children aged 8-17 years (57.9% girls; mean age, 13.7 years) were recruited from 32 pediatric dermatology centers in the United States and Canada from November 2018 to November 2021. The most common conditions were acne, atopic dermatitis/eczematous disorders, alopecia, and psoriasis, but rare genetic disorders were also represented.
• The primary outcome was the extent of stigmatization in relation to disease visibility, assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Instrumentation System Pediatric Stigma-Skin.
• Secondary outcomes were the extent of stigmatization in relation to disease severity, along with QoL, depression, anxiety, and poor peer relationships.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately half (56.4%) of the children self-reported their skin condition as highly visible; 50.5% reported their disease severity as moderate, while 21.3% reported it as severe.
• Stigma was experienced by 73% of children and adolescents with chronic skin disease, with 43.8% reporting moderate stigma.
• Stigma scores correlated strongly with impaired QOL (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.73) and child-reported scores for depression (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.61) and moderately with anxiety (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.54) and peer relationships (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = −0.49; all P < .001).
• Although stigma is increased for children with higher disease visibility and severity, the relatively weak correlation between child-assessed disease visibility and stigma (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.22) showed that stigma is common in children even when diseases are not highly visible.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better treatment approaches for chronic skin diseases in children remain an unmet need. Increased awareness and instituting medical and psychological interventions to identify and reduce stigma and disease severity are important directions for improving QOL,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Amy S. Paller, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Stigmatization needs to be assessed in children from low- and middle-income countries. Investigators enrolled children who had physician-assessed moderate to severe disease severity and/or at least some visibility of skin disease while wearing clothing, which resulted in exclusion of children with mild chronic disease, and the pandemic limited enrollment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded through a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA). The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, and honorarium and having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Most children and adolescents with chronic skin disorders may experience stigma, which is strongly associated with reduced quality of life (QOL) and childhood depression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Stigmatization has been addressed for several chronic medical conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, obesity, and mental illness; however, it has received limited attention in children living with chronic skin disorders.
• This cross-sectional, single-visit study examined the prevalence of stigma, its dependence on disease visibility and severity, and its association with mental health and QoL in children with chronic skin disorders.
• A total of 1671 children aged 8-17 years (57.9% girls; mean age, 13.7 years) were recruited from 32 pediatric dermatology centers in the United States and Canada from November 2018 to November 2021. The most common conditions were acne, atopic dermatitis/eczematous disorders, alopecia, and psoriasis, but rare genetic disorders were also represented.
• The primary outcome was the extent of stigmatization in relation to disease visibility, assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Instrumentation System Pediatric Stigma-Skin.
• Secondary outcomes were the extent of stigmatization in relation to disease severity, along with QoL, depression, anxiety, and poor peer relationships.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately half (56.4%) of the children self-reported their skin condition as highly visible; 50.5% reported their disease severity as moderate, while 21.3% reported it as severe.
• Stigma was experienced by 73% of children and adolescents with chronic skin disease, with 43.8% reporting moderate stigma.
• Stigma scores correlated strongly with impaired QOL (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.73) and child-reported scores for depression (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.61) and moderately with anxiety (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.54) and peer relationships (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = −0.49; all P < .001).
• Although stigma is increased for children with higher disease visibility and severity, the relatively weak correlation between child-assessed disease visibility and stigma (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.22) showed that stigma is common in children even when diseases are not highly visible.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better treatment approaches for chronic skin diseases in children remain an unmet need. Increased awareness and instituting medical and psychological interventions to identify and reduce stigma and disease severity are important directions for improving QOL,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Amy S. Paller, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Stigmatization needs to be assessed in children from low- and middle-income countries. Investigators enrolled children who had physician-assessed moderate to severe disease severity and/or at least some visibility of skin disease while wearing clothing, which resulted in exclusion of children with mild chronic disease, and the pandemic limited enrollment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded through a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA). The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, and honorarium and having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Most children and adolescents with chronic skin disorders may experience stigma, which is strongly associated with reduced quality of life (QOL) and childhood depression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Stigmatization has been addressed for several chronic medical conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, obesity, and mental illness; however, it has received limited attention in children living with chronic skin disorders.
• This cross-sectional, single-visit study examined the prevalence of stigma, its dependence on disease visibility and severity, and its association with mental health and QoL in children with chronic skin disorders.
• A total of 1671 children aged 8-17 years (57.9% girls; mean age, 13.7 years) were recruited from 32 pediatric dermatology centers in the United States and Canada from November 2018 to November 2021. The most common conditions were acne, atopic dermatitis/eczematous disorders, alopecia, and psoriasis, but rare genetic disorders were also represented.
• The primary outcome was the extent of stigmatization in relation to disease visibility, assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Instrumentation System Pediatric Stigma-Skin.
• Secondary outcomes were the extent of stigmatization in relation to disease severity, along with QoL, depression, anxiety, and poor peer relationships.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately half (56.4%) of the children self-reported their skin condition as highly visible; 50.5% reported their disease severity as moderate, while 21.3% reported it as severe.
• Stigma was experienced by 73% of children and adolescents with chronic skin disease, with 43.8% reporting moderate stigma.
• Stigma scores correlated strongly with impaired QOL (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.73) and child-reported scores for depression (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.61) and moderately with anxiety (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.54) and peer relationships (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = −0.49; all P < .001).
• Although stigma is increased for children with higher disease visibility and severity, the relatively weak correlation between child-assessed disease visibility and stigma (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.22) showed that stigma is common in children even when diseases are not highly visible.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better treatment approaches for chronic skin diseases in children remain an unmet need. Increased awareness and instituting medical and psychological interventions to identify and reduce stigma and disease severity are important directions for improving QOL,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Amy S. Paller, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Stigmatization needs to be assessed in children from low- and middle-income countries. Investigators enrolled children who had physician-assessed moderate to severe disease severity and/or at least some visibility of skin disease while wearing clothing, which resulted in exclusion of children with mild chronic disease, and the pandemic limited enrollment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded through a grant from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA). The authors declared receiving grants, personal fees, and honorarium and having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When child psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, MD, PhD, was a few years into his career, he found himself doing it all. “I was in a leadership role academically at the medical school, I had a leadership role at the hospital, and I was seeing as many patients as I could. I could work all day every day.”

“It still wouldn’t have been enough,” he said.

Whenever there was a shift available, Dr. Sukhera would take it. His job was stressful, but as a new physician with a young family, he saw this obsession with work as necessary. “I began to cope with the stress from work by doing extra work and feeling like I needed to be everywhere. It was like I became a hamster on a spinning wheel. I was just running, running, running.”

Things shifted for Dr. Sukhera when he realized that while he was emotionally available for the children who were his patients, at home, his own children weren’t getting the best of him. “There was a specific moment when I thought my son was afraid of me,” he said. “I just stopped and realized that there was something happening that I needed to break. I needed to make a change.”

Dr. Sukhera, now chair of psychiatry at the Institute of Living and chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, believes what he experienced was a steep fall into work addiction. “Workaholism,” often dismissed as simply working hard, is a nonclinical addiction that could fall under the umbrella of a behavioral addiction, and healthcare professionals may be especially at risk.
 

What Does Work Addiction Look Like for Doctors?

Behavioral addictions are fairly new in the addiction space. When gambling disorder, the first and only behavioral addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, was added in 2013, it was seen as a “breakthrough addiction,” said Mark D. Griffiths, PhD, a leading behavioral addiction researcher and a distinguished professor at Nottingham Trent University.

Because there is not enough evidence yet to classify work addiction as a formal diagnosis, there is no clear consensus on how to define it. To further complicate things, the terms “workaholism” and “work addiction” can be used interchangeably, and some experts say the two are not the same, though they can overlap.

That said, a 2018 review of literature from several countries found that work addiction “fits very well into recently postulated criteria for conceptualization of a behavioral addiction.

“If you accept that gambling can be genuinely addictive, then there’s no reason to think that something like work, exercise, or video game playing couldn’t be an addiction as well,” said Dr. Griffiths.

“The neurobiology of addiction is that we get drawn to something that gives us a dopamine hit,” Dr. Sukhera added. “But to do that all day, every day, has consequences. It drains our emotional reserves, and it can greatly impact our relationships.”

On top of that, work addiction has been linked with poor sleep, poor cardiovascular health, high blood pressure, burnout, the development of autoimmune disorders, and other health issues.

Physicians are particularly susceptible. Doctors, after all, are expected to work long hours and put their patients’ needs first, even at the expense of their own health and well-being.

“Workaholism is not just socially acceptable in medicine,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s baked into the system and built into the structures. The healthcare system has largely functioned on the emotional labor of health workers, whose tendency to show up and work harder can, at times, in certain organizations, be exploited.”

Dr. Griffiths agreed that with the limited amount of data available, work addiction does appear to exist at higher rates in medicine than in other fields. As early as the 1970s, medical literature describes work as a “socially acceptable” addiction among doctors. A 2014 study published in Occupational Medicine reported that of 445 physicians who took part in the research, nearly half exhibited some level of work addiction with 13% “highly work addicted.”

Of course, working hard or even meeting unreasonable demands from work is not the same as work addiction, as Dr. Griffiths clarified in a 2023 editorial in BMJ Quality & Safety. The difference, as with other behavioral addictions, is when people obsess about work and use it to cope with stress. It can be easier to stay distracted and busy to gain a sense of control rather than learning to deal with complex emotions.

A 2021 study that Dr. Sukhera conducted with resident physicians found that working harder was one of the main ways they dealt with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This idea that we deal with the stress of being burnt out by doing more and more of what burns us out is fairly ubiquitous at all stages of medical professionals’ careers,” he said.

Financial incentives also can fuel work addiction, said Dr. Sukhera. In residency, there are some safeguards around overwork and duty hours. When you become an attending, those limits no longer exist. As a young physician, Dr. Sukhera had student debt to pay off and a family to support. When he found opportunities to earn more by working more, his answer was always “yes.”

Pressure to produce medical research also can pose issues. Some physicians can become addicted to publishing studies, fearing that they might lose their professional status or position if they stop. It’s a cycle that can force a doctor to not only work long hours doing their job but also practically take on a second one.
 

How Physicians Can Recognize Work Addiction in Themselves

Work addiction can look and feel different for every person, said Malissa Clark, PhD, associate professor at the University of Georgia and author of the recent book Never Not Working: Why the Always-On Culture Is Bad for Business—and How to Fix It.

Dr. Clark noted that people who are highly engaged in their work tend to be driven by intrinsic motivation: “You work because you love it.” With work addiction, “you work because you feel like you ought to be working all the time.”

Of course, it’s not always so cut and dried; you can experience both forms of motivation and not necessarily become addicted to work. But if you are solely driven by the feeling that you ought to be working all the time, that can be a red flag.

Dr. Griffiths said that while many people may have problematic work habits or work too much, true work addicts must meet six criteria that apply to all addictions:

1. Salience: Work is the single most important thing in your life, to the point of neglecting everything else. Even if you’re on vacation, your mind might be flooded with work thoughts.

2. Mood modification: You use work to modify your mood, either to get a “high” or to cope with stress.

3. Tolerance: Over time, you’ve gone from working 8 or 10 hours a day to 12 hours a day, to a point where you’re working all the time.

4. Withdrawal: On a physiological level, you will have symptoms such as anxiety, nausea, or headaches when unable to work.

5. Conflict: You feel conflicted with yourself (you know you’re working too much) or with others (partners, friends, and children) about work, but you can’t stop.

6. Relapse: If you manage to cut down your hours but can’t resist overworking 1 day, you wind up right back where you were.
 

When It’s Time to Address Work Addiction

The lack of a formal diagnosis for work addiction makes getting treatment difficult. But there are ways to seek help. Unlike the drug and alcohol literature, abstinence is not the goal. “The therapeutic goal is getting a behavior under control and looking for the triggers of why you’re compulsively working,” said Dr. Griffiths.

Practice self-compassion

Dr. Sukhera eventually realized that his work addiction stemmed from the fear of being somehow excluded or unworthy. He actively corrected much of this through self-compassion and self-kindness, which helped him set boundaries. “Self-compassion is the root of everything,” he said. “Reminding ourselves that we’re doing our best is an important ingredient in breaking the cycle.”

Slowly expose yourself to relaxation

Many workaholics find rest very difficult. “When I conducted interviews with people [who considered themselves workaholics], a very common thing I heard was, ‘I have a very hard time being idle,’ ” said Dr. Clark. If rest feels hard, Dr. Sukhera suggests practicing relaxation for 2 minutes to start. Even small periods of downtime can challenge the belief that you must be constantly productive.

Reframe your to-do list 

For work addicts, to-do lists can seem like they must be finished, which prolongs work hours. Instead, use to-do lists to help prioritize what is urgent, identify what can wait, and delegate out tasks to others, Dr. Clark recommends.

Pick up a mastery experience

Research from professor Sabine Sonnentag, Dr. rer. nat., at the University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, suggests that mastery experiences — leisure activities that require thought and focus like learning a new language or taking a woodworking class — can help you actively disengage from work.

Try cognitive behavioral therapy

Widely used for other forms of addiction, cognitive behavioral therapy centers around recognizing emotions, challenging thought patterns, and changing behaviors. However, Dr. Clark admits the research on its impact on work addiction, in particular, is “pretty nascent.”

Shift your mindset

It seems logical to think that detaching from your feelings will allow you to “do more,” but experts say that idea is both untrue and dangerous. “The safest hospitals are the hospitals where people are attuned to their humanness,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s normal to overwork in medicine, and if you’re challenging a norm, you really have to be thoughtful about how you frame that for yourself.”

Most importantly: Seek support

Today, there is increased awareness about work addiction and more resources for physicians who are struggling, including programs such as Workaholics Anonymous or Physicians Anonymous and workplace wellness initiatives. But try not to overwhelm yourself with choosing whom to talk to or what specific resource to utilize, Dr. Sukhera advised. “Just talk to someone about it. You don’t have to carry this on your own.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When child psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, MD, PhD, was a few years into his career, he found himself doing it all. “I was in a leadership role academically at the medical school, I had a leadership role at the hospital, and I was seeing as many patients as I could. I could work all day every day.”

“It still wouldn’t have been enough,” he said.

Whenever there was a shift available, Dr. Sukhera would take it. His job was stressful, but as a new physician with a young family, he saw this obsession with work as necessary. “I began to cope with the stress from work by doing extra work and feeling like I needed to be everywhere. It was like I became a hamster on a spinning wheel. I was just running, running, running.”

Things shifted for Dr. Sukhera when he realized that while he was emotionally available for the children who were his patients, at home, his own children weren’t getting the best of him. “There was a specific moment when I thought my son was afraid of me,” he said. “I just stopped and realized that there was something happening that I needed to break. I needed to make a change.”

Dr. Sukhera, now chair of psychiatry at the Institute of Living and chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, believes what he experienced was a steep fall into work addiction. “Workaholism,” often dismissed as simply working hard, is a nonclinical addiction that could fall under the umbrella of a behavioral addiction, and healthcare professionals may be especially at risk.
 

What Does Work Addiction Look Like for Doctors?

Behavioral addictions are fairly new in the addiction space. When gambling disorder, the first and only behavioral addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, was added in 2013, it was seen as a “breakthrough addiction,” said Mark D. Griffiths, PhD, a leading behavioral addiction researcher and a distinguished professor at Nottingham Trent University.

Because there is not enough evidence yet to classify work addiction as a formal diagnosis, there is no clear consensus on how to define it. To further complicate things, the terms “workaholism” and “work addiction” can be used interchangeably, and some experts say the two are not the same, though they can overlap.

That said, a 2018 review of literature from several countries found that work addiction “fits very well into recently postulated criteria for conceptualization of a behavioral addiction.

“If you accept that gambling can be genuinely addictive, then there’s no reason to think that something like work, exercise, or video game playing couldn’t be an addiction as well,” said Dr. Griffiths.

“The neurobiology of addiction is that we get drawn to something that gives us a dopamine hit,” Dr. Sukhera added. “But to do that all day, every day, has consequences. It drains our emotional reserves, and it can greatly impact our relationships.”

On top of that, work addiction has been linked with poor sleep, poor cardiovascular health, high blood pressure, burnout, the development of autoimmune disorders, and other health issues.

Physicians are particularly susceptible. Doctors, after all, are expected to work long hours and put their patients’ needs first, even at the expense of their own health and well-being.

“Workaholism is not just socially acceptable in medicine,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s baked into the system and built into the structures. The healthcare system has largely functioned on the emotional labor of health workers, whose tendency to show up and work harder can, at times, in certain organizations, be exploited.”

Dr. Griffiths agreed that with the limited amount of data available, work addiction does appear to exist at higher rates in medicine than in other fields. As early as the 1970s, medical literature describes work as a “socially acceptable” addiction among doctors. A 2014 study published in Occupational Medicine reported that of 445 physicians who took part in the research, nearly half exhibited some level of work addiction with 13% “highly work addicted.”

Of course, working hard or even meeting unreasonable demands from work is not the same as work addiction, as Dr. Griffiths clarified in a 2023 editorial in BMJ Quality & Safety. The difference, as with other behavioral addictions, is when people obsess about work and use it to cope with stress. It can be easier to stay distracted and busy to gain a sense of control rather than learning to deal with complex emotions.

A 2021 study that Dr. Sukhera conducted with resident physicians found that working harder was one of the main ways they dealt with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This idea that we deal with the stress of being burnt out by doing more and more of what burns us out is fairly ubiquitous at all stages of medical professionals’ careers,” he said.

Financial incentives also can fuel work addiction, said Dr. Sukhera. In residency, there are some safeguards around overwork and duty hours. When you become an attending, those limits no longer exist. As a young physician, Dr. Sukhera had student debt to pay off and a family to support. When he found opportunities to earn more by working more, his answer was always “yes.”

Pressure to produce medical research also can pose issues. Some physicians can become addicted to publishing studies, fearing that they might lose their professional status or position if they stop. It’s a cycle that can force a doctor to not only work long hours doing their job but also practically take on a second one.
 

How Physicians Can Recognize Work Addiction in Themselves

Work addiction can look and feel different for every person, said Malissa Clark, PhD, associate professor at the University of Georgia and author of the recent book Never Not Working: Why the Always-On Culture Is Bad for Business—and How to Fix It.

Dr. Clark noted that people who are highly engaged in their work tend to be driven by intrinsic motivation: “You work because you love it.” With work addiction, “you work because you feel like you ought to be working all the time.”

Of course, it’s not always so cut and dried; you can experience both forms of motivation and not necessarily become addicted to work. But if you are solely driven by the feeling that you ought to be working all the time, that can be a red flag.

Dr. Griffiths said that while many people may have problematic work habits or work too much, true work addicts must meet six criteria that apply to all addictions:

1. Salience: Work is the single most important thing in your life, to the point of neglecting everything else. Even if you’re on vacation, your mind might be flooded with work thoughts.

2. Mood modification: You use work to modify your mood, either to get a “high” or to cope with stress.

3. Tolerance: Over time, you’ve gone from working 8 or 10 hours a day to 12 hours a day, to a point where you’re working all the time.

4. Withdrawal: On a physiological level, you will have symptoms such as anxiety, nausea, or headaches when unable to work.

5. Conflict: You feel conflicted with yourself (you know you’re working too much) or with others (partners, friends, and children) about work, but you can’t stop.

6. Relapse: If you manage to cut down your hours but can’t resist overworking 1 day, you wind up right back where you were.
 

When It’s Time to Address Work Addiction

The lack of a formal diagnosis for work addiction makes getting treatment difficult. But there are ways to seek help. Unlike the drug and alcohol literature, abstinence is not the goal. “The therapeutic goal is getting a behavior under control and looking for the triggers of why you’re compulsively working,” said Dr. Griffiths.

Practice self-compassion

Dr. Sukhera eventually realized that his work addiction stemmed from the fear of being somehow excluded or unworthy. He actively corrected much of this through self-compassion and self-kindness, which helped him set boundaries. “Self-compassion is the root of everything,” he said. “Reminding ourselves that we’re doing our best is an important ingredient in breaking the cycle.”

Slowly expose yourself to relaxation

Many workaholics find rest very difficult. “When I conducted interviews with people [who considered themselves workaholics], a very common thing I heard was, ‘I have a very hard time being idle,’ ” said Dr. Clark. If rest feels hard, Dr. Sukhera suggests practicing relaxation for 2 minutes to start. Even small periods of downtime can challenge the belief that you must be constantly productive.

Reframe your to-do list 

For work addicts, to-do lists can seem like they must be finished, which prolongs work hours. Instead, use to-do lists to help prioritize what is urgent, identify what can wait, and delegate out tasks to others, Dr. Clark recommends.

Pick up a mastery experience

Research from professor Sabine Sonnentag, Dr. rer. nat., at the University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, suggests that mastery experiences — leisure activities that require thought and focus like learning a new language or taking a woodworking class — can help you actively disengage from work.

Try cognitive behavioral therapy

Widely used for other forms of addiction, cognitive behavioral therapy centers around recognizing emotions, challenging thought patterns, and changing behaviors. However, Dr. Clark admits the research on its impact on work addiction, in particular, is “pretty nascent.”

Shift your mindset

It seems logical to think that detaching from your feelings will allow you to “do more,” but experts say that idea is both untrue and dangerous. “The safest hospitals are the hospitals where people are attuned to their humanness,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s normal to overwork in medicine, and if you’re challenging a norm, you really have to be thoughtful about how you frame that for yourself.”

Most importantly: Seek support

Today, there is increased awareness about work addiction and more resources for physicians who are struggling, including programs such as Workaholics Anonymous or Physicians Anonymous and workplace wellness initiatives. But try not to overwhelm yourself with choosing whom to talk to or what specific resource to utilize, Dr. Sukhera advised. “Just talk to someone about it. You don’t have to carry this on your own.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When child psychiatrist Javeed Sukhera, MD, PhD, was a few years into his career, he found himself doing it all. “I was in a leadership role academically at the medical school, I had a leadership role at the hospital, and I was seeing as many patients as I could. I could work all day every day.”

“It still wouldn’t have been enough,” he said.

Whenever there was a shift available, Dr. Sukhera would take it. His job was stressful, but as a new physician with a young family, he saw this obsession with work as necessary. “I began to cope with the stress from work by doing extra work and feeling like I needed to be everywhere. It was like I became a hamster on a spinning wheel. I was just running, running, running.”

Things shifted for Dr. Sukhera when he realized that while he was emotionally available for the children who were his patients, at home, his own children weren’t getting the best of him. “There was a specific moment when I thought my son was afraid of me,” he said. “I just stopped and realized that there was something happening that I needed to break. I needed to make a change.”

Dr. Sukhera, now chair of psychiatry at the Institute of Living and chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, believes what he experienced was a steep fall into work addiction. “Workaholism,” often dismissed as simply working hard, is a nonclinical addiction that could fall under the umbrella of a behavioral addiction, and healthcare professionals may be especially at risk.
 

What Does Work Addiction Look Like for Doctors?

Behavioral addictions are fairly new in the addiction space. When gambling disorder, the first and only behavioral addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, was added in 2013, it was seen as a “breakthrough addiction,” said Mark D. Griffiths, PhD, a leading behavioral addiction researcher and a distinguished professor at Nottingham Trent University.

Because there is not enough evidence yet to classify work addiction as a formal diagnosis, there is no clear consensus on how to define it. To further complicate things, the terms “workaholism” and “work addiction” can be used interchangeably, and some experts say the two are not the same, though they can overlap.

That said, a 2018 review of literature from several countries found that work addiction “fits very well into recently postulated criteria for conceptualization of a behavioral addiction.

“If you accept that gambling can be genuinely addictive, then there’s no reason to think that something like work, exercise, or video game playing couldn’t be an addiction as well,” said Dr. Griffiths.

“The neurobiology of addiction is that we get drawn to something that gives us a dopamine hit,” Dr. Sukhera added. “But to do that all day, every day, has consequences. It drains our emotional reserves, and it can greatly impact our relationships.”

On top of that, work addiction has been linked with poor sleep, poor cardiovascular health, high blood pressure, burnout, the development of autoimmune disorders, and other health issues.

Physicians are particularly susceptible. Doctors, after all, are expected to work long hours and put their patients’ needs first, even at the expense of their own health and well-being.

“Workaholism is not just socially acceptable in medicine,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s baked into the system and built into the structures. The healthcare system has largely functioned on the emotional labor of health workers, whose tendency to show up and work harder can, at times, in certain organizations, be exploited.”

Dr. Griffiths agreed that with the limited amount of data available, work addiction does appear to exist at higher rates in medicine than in other fields. As early as the 1970s, medical literature describes work as a “socially acceptable” addiction among doctors. A 2014 study published in Occupational Medicine reported that of 445 physicians who took part in the research, nearly half exhibited some level of work addiction with 13% “highly work addicted.”

Of course, working hard or even meeting unreasonable demands from work is not the same as work addiction, as Dr. Griffiths clarified in a 2023 editorial in BMJ Quality & Safety. The difference, as with other behavioral addictions, is when people obsess about work and use it to cope with stress. It can be easier to stay distracted and busy to gain a sense of control rather than learning to deal with complex emotions.

A 2021 study that Dr. Sukhera conducted with resident physicians found that working harder was one of the main ways they dealt with stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This idea that we deal with the stress of being burnt out by doing more and more of what burns us out is fairly ubiquitous at all stages of medical professionals’ careers,” he said.

Financial incentives also can fuel work addiction, said Dr. Sukhera. In residency, there are some safeguards around overwork and duty hours. When you become an attending, those limits no longer exist. As a young physician, Dr. Sukhera had student debt to pay off and a family to support. When he found opportunities to earn more by working more, his answer was always “yes.”

Pressure to produce medical research also can pose issues. Some physicians can become addicted to publishing studies, fearing that they might lose their professional status or position if they stop. It’s a cycle that can force a doctor to not only work long hours doing their job but also practically take on a second one.
 

How Physicians Can Recognize Work Addiction in Themselves

Work addiction can look and feel different for every person, said Malissa Clark, PhD, associate professor at the University of Georgia and author of the recent book Never Not Working: Why the Always-On Culture Is Bad for Business—and How to Fix It.

Dr. Clark noted that people who are highly engaged in their work tend to be driven by intrinsic motivation: “You work because you love it.” With work addiction, “you work because you feel like you ought to be working all the time.”

Of course, it’s not always so cut and dried; you can experience both forms of motivation and not necessarily become addicted to work. But if you are solely driven by the feeling that you ought to be working all the time, that can be a red flag.

Dr. Griffiths said that while many people may have problematic work habits or work too much, true work addicts must meet six criteria that apply to all addictions:

1. Salience: Work is the single most important thing in your life, to the point of neglecting everything else. Even if you’re on vacation, your mind might be flooded with work thoughts.

2. Mood modification: You use work to modify your mood, either to get a “high” or to cope with stress.

3. Tolerance: Over time, you’ve gone from working 8 or 10 hours a day to 12 hours a day, to a point where you’re working all the time.

4. Withdrawal: On a physiological level, you will have symptoms such as anxiety, nausea, or headaches when unable to work.

5. Conflict: You feel conflicted with yourself (you know you’re working too much) or with others (partners, friends, and children) about work, but you can’t stop.

6. Relapse: If you manage to cut down your hours but can’t resist overworking 1 day, you wind up right back where you were.
 

When It’s Time to Address Work Addiction

The lack of a formal diagnosis for work addiction makes getting treatment difficult. But there are ways to seek help. Unlike the drug and alcohol literature, abstinence is not the goal. “The therapeutic goal is getting a behavior under control and looking for the triggers of why you’re compulsively working,” said Dr. Griffiths.

Practice self-compassion

Dr. Sukhera eventually realized that his work addiction stemmed from the fear of being somehow excluded or unworthy. He actively corrected much of this through self-compassion and self-kindness, which helped him set boundaries. “Self-compassion is the root of everything,” he said. “Reminding ourselves that we’re doing our best is an important ingredient in breaking the cycle.”

Slowly expose yourself to relaxation

Many workaholics find rest very difficult. “When I conducted interviews with people [who considered themselves workaholics], a very common thing I heard was, ‘I have a very hard time being idle,’ ” said Dr. Clark. If rest feels hard, Dr. Sukhera suggests practicing relaxation for 2 minutes to start. Even small periods of downtime can challenge the belief that you must be constantly productive.

Reframe your to-do list 

For work addicts, to-do lists can seem like they must be finished, which prolongs work hours. Instead, use to-do lists to help prioritize what is urgent, identify what can wait, and delegate out tasks to others, Dr. Clark recommends.

Pick up a mastery experience

Research from professor Sabine Sonnentag, Dr. rer. nat., at the University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany, suggests that mastery experiences — leisure activities that require thought and focus like learning a new language or taking a woodworking class — can help you actively disengage from work.

Try cognitive behavioral therapy

Widely used for other forms of addiction, cognitive behavioral therapy centers around recognizing emotions, challenging thought patterns, and changing behaviors. However, Dr. Clark admits the research on its impact on work addiction, in particular, is “pretty nascent.”

Shift your mindset

It seems logical to think that detaching from your feelings will allow you to “do more,” but experts say that idea is both untrue and dangerous. “The safest hospitals are the hospitals where people are attuned to their humanness,” said Dr. Sukhera. “It’s normal to overwork in medicine, and if you’re challenging a norm, you really have to be thoughtful about how you frame that for yourself.”

Most importantly: Seek support

Today, there is increased awareness about work addiction and more resources for physicians who are struggling, including programs such as Workaholics Anonymous or Physicians Anonymous and workplace wellness initiatives. But try not to overwhelm yourself with choosing whom to talk to or what specific resource to utilize, Dr. Sukhera advised. “Just talk to someone about it. You don’t have to carry this on your own.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently read an op-ed piece in which the author wondered if any young people entering the practice of medicine felt that they were answering a “calling.” I suspect that there will continue to be, and will always be, idealists whose primary motivation for choosing medicine is that they will be healing the sick or at least providing comfort to the suffering. I occasionally hear that about a former patient who has been inspired by a personal or familial experience with a serious illness.

Unfortunately, I suspect those who feel called are the providers most likely to feel discouraged and frustrated by the current state of primary care. Luckily, I never felt a calling. For me, primary care pediatrics was a job. One that l felt obligated to perform to the best of my ability. Mine was not a calling but an inherited philosophy that work in itself was virtuous. A work ethic, if you will. Pediatrics offered the additional reward that, if well done, it might help some parents and their children feel a little better.

Fifty years ago I was not alone in treating medicine as a job. Most physicians were self-employed. Although there were exceptions like Albert Schweitzer, even those of us with a calling had to obey the basic rules of business as it applied to medicine. We were employer and employee and had to understand the critical factors of overhead, profit, and loss.

I have burdened you with this little history recitation not to suggest that things were better in the good old days, but to provide a stepping stone into the murky and uncomfortable topic of primary care physician (PCP) compensation. Because almost three quarters of you work for a hospital, health system, or corporate entity, I am going to illuminate our journey by leaning on the advice of an international company with 7000 employees and revenue of 2.5 billion dollars that considers itself a “global leader” in management consulting. Your employer is listening to some management consultant and it may help us to view your compensation from someone on their side of the table.

First, you should be aware that “most health systems lose money on their primary care operations — up to $200,000 or more per primary care physician.” This may help explain why despite being in short supply, you and most PCPs feel undervalued. However, if we are such losers, we must provide something(s) that the systems are seeking. It is likely that the system is looking to tout its ability to provide comprehensive care and demonstrate that it has a patient base broad enough to warrant attention and provide bargaining leverage on volume discounts.

The system also may want to minimize competition by absorbing the remaining PCPs in the community into their system. With you outside of the system, it had less control over your compensation than it does when you are under its umbrella.

Your employer may want to grow and feed its specialty care network, and it sees PCPs as having the fuel stored in their patient volume to do just that. In simplest and most cynical terms, the systems are willing to take a loss on us less profitable high-volume grunts in order to reap the profits of the lower-volume high-profitability specialties and subspecialties.

So that’s why you as a PCP have any value at all to a large healthcare system. But, it means that to maintain your value to the system you must continue to provide the volume it anticipates and needs. While the system may have been willing to accept some degrees of unprofitability when it hired you, there are limits. And, we shouldn’t be surprised if they continue to urge or demand that we narrow the gap between the revenue we generate and the costs that we incur, ie, our overhead.

In Part 2 of this series, I’m going to discuss the collateral damage that occurs when volume and overhead collide in an environment that claims to be committed to patient care.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I recently read an op-ed piece in which the author wondered if any young people entering the practice of medicine felt that they were answering a “calling.” I suspect that there will continue to be, and will always be, idealists whose primary motivation for choosing medicine is that they will be healing the sick or at least providing comfort to the suffering. I occasionally hear that about a former patient who has been inspired by a personal or familial experience with a serious illness.

Unfortunately, I suspect those who feel called are the providers most likely to feel discouraged and frustrated by the current state of primary care. Luckily, I never felt a calling. For me, primary care pediatrics was a job. One that l felt obligated to perform to the best of my ability. Mine was not a calling but an inherited philosophy that work in itself was virtuous. A work ethic, if you will. Pediatrics offered the additional reward that, if well done, it might help some parents and their children feel a little better.

Fifty years ago I was not alone in treating medicine as a job. Most physicians were self-employed. Although there were exceptions like Albert Schweitzer, even those of us with a calling had to obey the basic rules of business as it applied to medicine. We were employer and employee and had to understand the critical factors of overhead, profit, and loss.

I have burdened you with this little history recitation not to suggest that things were better in the good old days, but to provide a stepping stone into the murky and uncomfortable topic of primary care physician (PCP) compensation. Because almost three quarters of you work for a hospital, health system, or corporate entity, I am going to illuminate our journey by leaning on the advice of an international company with 7000 employees and revenue of 2.5 billion dollars that considers itself a “global leader” in management consulting. Your employer is listening to some management consultant and it may help us to view your compensation from someone on their side of the table.

First, you should be aware that “most health systems lose money on their primary care operations — up to $200,000 or more per primary care physician.” This may help explain why despite being in short supply, you and most PCPs feel undervalued. However, if we are such losers, we must provide something(s) that the systems are seeking. It is likely that the system is looking to tout its ability to provide comprehensive care and demonstrate that it has a patient base broad enough to warrant attention and provide bargaining leverage on volume discounts.

The system also may want to minimize competition by absorbing the remaining PCPs in the community into their system. With you outside of the system, it had less control over your compensation than it does when you are under its umbrella.

Your employer may want to grow and feed its specialty care network, and it sees PCPs as having the fuel stored in their patient volume to do just that. In simplest and most cynical terms, the systems are willing to take a loss on us less profitable high-volume grunts in order to reap the profits of the lower-volume high-profitability specialties and subspecialties.

So that’s why you as a PCP have any value at all to a large healthcare system. But, it means that to maintain your value to the system you must continue to provide the volume it anticipates and needs. While the system may have been willing to accept some degrees of unprofitability when it hired you, there are limits. And, we shouldn’t be surprised if they continue to urge or demand that we narrow the gap between the revenue we generate and the costs that we incur, ie, our overhead.

In Part 2 of this series, I’m going to discuss the collateral damage that occurs when volume and overhead collide in an environment that claims to be committed to patient care.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I recently read an op-ed piece in which the author wondered if any young people entering the practice of medicine felt that they were answering a “calling.” I suspect that there will continue to be, and will always be, idealists whose primary motivation for choosing medicine is that they will be healing the sick or at least providing comfort to the suffering. I occasionally hear that about a former patient who has been inspired by a personal or familial experience with a serious illness.

Unfortunately, I suspect those who feel called are the providers most likely to feel discouraged and frustrated by the current state of primary care. Luckily, I never felt a calling. For me, primary care pediatrics was a job. One that l felt obligated to perform to the best of my ability. Mine was not a calling but an inherited philosophy that work in itself was virtuous. A work ethic, if you will. Pediatrics offered the additional reward that, if well done, it might help some parents and their children feel a little better.

Fifty years ago I was not alone in treating medicine as a job. Most physicians were self-employed. Although there were exceptions like Albert Schweitzer, even those of us with a calling had to obey the basic rules of business as it applied to medicine. We were employer and employee and had to understand the critical factors of overhead, profit, and loss.

I have burdened you with this little history recitation not to suggest that things were better in the good old days, but to provide a stepping stone into the murky and uncomfortable topic of primary care physician (PCP) compensation. Because almost three quarters of you work for a hospital, health system, or corporate entity, I am going to illuminate our journey by leaning on the advice of an international company with 7000 employees and revenue of 2.5 billion dollars that considers itself a “global leader” in management consulting. Your employer is listening to some management consultant and it may help us to view your compensation from someone on their side of the table.

First, you should be aware that “most health systems lose money on their primary care operations — up to $200,000 or more per primary care physician.” This may help explain why despite being in short supply, you and most PCPs feel undervalued. However, if we are such losers, we must provide something(s) that the systems are seeking. It is likely that the system is looking to tout its ability to provide comprehensive care and demonstrate that it has a patient base broad enough to warrant attention and provide bargaining leverage on volume discounts.

The system also may want to minimize competition by absorbing the remaining PCPs in the community into their system. With you outside of the system, it had less control over your compensation than it does when you are under its umbrella.

Your employer may want to grow and feed its specialty care network, and it sees PCPs as having the fuel stored in their patient volume to do just that. In simplest and most cynical terms, the systems are willing to take a loss on us less profitable high-volume grunts in order to reap the profits of the lower-volume high-profitability specialties and subspecialties.

So that’s why you as a PCP have any value at all to a large healthcare system. But, it means that to maintain your value to the system you must continue to provide the volume it anticipates and needs. While the system may have been willing to accept some degrees of unprofitability when it hired you, there are limits. And, we shouldn’t be surprised if they continue to urge or demand that we narrow the gap between the revenue we generate and the costs that we incur, ie, our overhead.

In Part 2 of this series, I’m going to discuss the collateral damage that occurs when volume and overhead collide in an environment that claims to be committed to patient care.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].