Commentary

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

John worked as a handyman and lived on a small sailboat in a marina. When he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer at age 48, he quickly fell through the cracks. He failed to show to appointments and took oral anticancer treatments, but just sporadically. He had Medicaid, so insurance wasn’t the issue. It was everything else.

John was behind on his slip fees; he hadn’t been able to work for some time because of his progressive weakness and pain. He was chronically in danger of getting kicked out of his makeshift home aboard the boat. He had no reliable transportation to the clinic and so he didn’t come to appointments regularly. The specialty pharmacy refused to deliver his expensive oral chemotherapy to his address at the marina. He went days without eating full meals because he was too weak to cook for himself. Plus, he was estranged from his family who were unaware of his illness. His oncologist was overwhelmed trying to take care of him. He had a reasonable chance of achieving disease control on first-line oral therapy, but his problems seemed to hinder these chances at every turn. She was distraught – what could she do?

Enter the team approach. John’s oncologist reached out to our palliative care program for help. We recognized that this was a job too big for us alone so we connected John with the Extensivist Medicine program at UCLA Health, a high-intensity primary care program led by a physician specializing in primary care for high-risk individuals. The program provides wraparound outpatient services for chronically and seriously ill patients, like John, who are at risk for falling through the cracks. John went from receiving very little support to now having an entire team of caring professionals focused on helping him achieve his best possible outcome despite the seriousness of his disease.

He now had the support of a high-functioning team with clearly defined roles. Social work connected him with housing, food, and transportation resources. A nurse called him every day to check in and make sure he was taking medications and reminded him about his upcoming appointments. Case management helped him get needed equipment, such as grab bars and a walker. As his palliative care nurse practitioner, I counseled him on understanding his prognosis and planning ahead for medical emergencies. Our psycho-oncology clinicians helped John reconcile with his family, who were more than willing to take him in once they realized how ill he was. Once these social factors were addressed, John could more easily stay current with his oral chemotherapy, giving him the best chance possible to achieve a robust treatment response that could buy him more time.

And, John did get that time – he got 6 months of improved quality of life, during which he reconnected with his family, including his children, and rebuilt these important relationships. Eventually treatment failed him. His disease, already widely metastatic, became more active and painful. He accepted hospice care at his sister’s house and we transitioned him from our team to the hospice team. He died peacefully surrounded by family.
 

Interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to treat ‘total pain’

None of this would have been possible without the work of high-functioning teams. It is a commonly held belief that interprofessional teamwork is fundamental to the care of patients and families living with serious illness. But why? How did this idea come about? And what evidence is there to support teamwork?

Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the modern hospice movement in mid-20th century England, embodied the interdisciplinary team by working first as a nurse, then a social worker, and finally as a physician. She wrote about patients’ “total pain,” the crisis of physical, spiritual, social, and emotional distress that many people have at the end of life. She understood that no single health care discipline was adequate to the task of addressing each of these domains equally well. Thus, hospice became synonymous with care provided by a quartet of specialists – physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains. Nowadays, there are other specialists that are added to the mix – home health aides, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, music and pet therapists, and so on.

But in medicine, like all areas of science, convention and tradition only go so far. What evidence is there to support the work of an interdisciplinary team in managing the distress of patients and families living with advanced illnesses? It turns out that there is good evidence to support the use of high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in the care of the seriously ill. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes, including improvements in symptom control, quality of life, and end of life care, when it is delivered by an interdisciplinary team rather than by a solo practitioner.

You may think that teamwork is most useful for patients like John who have seemingly intractable social barriers. But it is also true that for even patients with many more social advantages teamwork improves quality of life. I got to see this up close recently in my own life.
 

Teamwork improves quality of life

My father recently passed away after a 9-month battle with advanced cancer. He had every advantage possible – financial stability, high health literacy, an incredibly devoted spouse who happens to be an RN, good insurance, and access to top-notch medical care. Yet, even he benefited from a team approach. It started small, with the oncologist and oncology NP providing excellent, patient-centered care. Then it grew to include myself as the daughter/palliative care nurse practitioner who made recommendations for treating his nausea and ensured that his advance directive was completed and uploaded to his chart. When my dad needed physical therapy, the home health agency sent a wonderful physical therapist, who brought all sorts of equipment that kept him more functional than he would have been otherwise. Other family members helped out – my sisters helped connect my dad with a priest who came to the home to provide spiritual care, which was crucial to ensuring that he was at peace. And, in his final days, my dad had the hospice team to help manage his symptoms and his family members to provide hands-on care.

Cancer, as one of my patients once remarked to me, is a “full-contact sport.” Living with advanced cancer touches nearly every aspect of a person’s life. The complexity of cancer care has long necessitated a team approach to planning cancer treatment – known as a tumor board – with medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and pathology all weighing in. It makes sense that patients and their families would also need a team of clinicians representing different specialty areas to assist with the wide array of physical, psychosocial, practical, and spiritual concerns that arise throughout the cancer disease trajectory.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

According to the second law of thermo­dynamics, it is inevitable that entropy will continue to increase over time.¹ Entropy is a measure of disorder, which can eventuate in chaos and lead to profound uncertainty, with serious psychological consequences.

The increase in entropy is usually gradual. It took hundreds of years for powerful empires and civilizations to collapse and disappear. Inanimate objects such as a house, a piece of furniture, or a piece of equipment eventually deteriorate and break down over time. Tidy offices will become messy, cluttered, and dirty unless attended to regularly. Living organisms, including humans, inevitably undergo an aging process with cell­ular senescence, atrophy, and loss of cerebral, muscle, and bone tissue, ending in death. Even human relationships will eventually fracture, wither, and end. The passage of time ruthlessly increases the entropy of everything in life. Even the 13-billion-year-old universe, which currently looks formidable and permanent to us, is inexorably expanding and hurtling towards a calamitous end a few billion years from now.

To slow down, halt, or reverse entropy, work and energy must be invested. A house requires regular maintenance for all its components to avoid deteriorating and becoming uninhabitable (very high entropy). Humans require massive amounts of work during fetal life, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and throughout old age. This includes work by parents, teachers, friends, physicians, farmers, and manufacturers of food, clothing, and sundry supplies, all targeted to maintain an individual and slow the rate of entropy. But death is inevitable as the final stage of human entropy.

The brain is an entropic organ.² Psychiatric disorders can be conceptualized as a neurobiologic consequence of a major rise in brain entropy. The chaos created by high brain entropy will lead to a disruption of basic mental functions such as thought, mood, affect, impulses, behavior, and cognition. Brain entropy increases can be due to genetics or the environment, but most often are due an interaction of both (G x E).

Societal entropy and our patients

Psychiatric patients are deeply influenced by the context in which they live (society). The entropy of contemporary society is rising at an alarming rate, which means that order is rapidly degenerating into disorder at an unprecedented pace. When the COVID-19 pandemic abruptly emerged in early 2020, it was a major public health shock that drastically changed the lives of all citizens and dramatically increased societal entropy. The pandemic led to lockdowns, fear of death, gut-wrenching uncertainty (especially for a whole year before vaccines were developed, but even after), loss of socialization and sexual intimacy, loss of employment, financial straits, and an inability to access routine medical or surgical procedures. Everyone in society developed anxiety and acute stress reaction, but those with pre-existing psychiatric disorders suffered the most with an intensification of their symptoms.

The unforeseen, sudden, and traumatically life-altering pandemic triggered various degrees of posttraumatic stress disorder across all age groups, and painful death in medically compromised individuals and older adults. Both physical and psychological entropy skyrocketed and the “order” of life as we knew it rapidly disintegrated into shambles and disorder. The abrupt traumatic jolt triggered various degrees of deleterious impacts on the brains of all who experienced it in real time. The rise in the psychobiological entropy was unprecedented across the structures of society, especially the population, its vulnerable human component.

But even as the worst of the pandemic is in our rearview mirror and life again has a semblance of normality, the rise of entropy continues to accelerate because we continue to be surrounded and engulfed by countless stressful events in contemporary society. Those nagging stresses continue to transmute order to chaos and metamorphose comforting predictability to entrenched uncertainty:

• Toxic political hyperpartisanship, with intense animus and visceral bi­directional hatred
• Racial tensions, with overt bias across groups
• Economic turmoil, with inflation and threats of recession
• Actual wars and threats of war
• Social media that spreads bad news and distorts facts
• An opioid crisis, with hundreds of thousands of deaths
• Skyrocketing crime, with a decline in policing and quick release of criminals without bail
• A ruthless and arbitrary “cancel culture” that doesn’t even spare the previously revered founders of the republic
• Cognitive dissonance of disparaging Abraham Lincoln despite his major achievement of eliminating slavery by waging a civil war
• The social and medical strife regarding access to abortion.

Continue to: I also would include...

(I also would include some “entropy pet peeves” of mine: Torn clothes as a fashion statement, transforming tattoos from an oddity to a fad, nose rings that disfigure pretty faces, and banishing neckties for men.)

Our role in this scenario

As psychiatrists, we must step up to intensify the work needed to slow down and even reverse the dangerously rising brain entropy in our patients. But that is not an easy task given the implosion of societal norms and traditional values, along with the radicalization of beliefs, with utter intolerance of others’ beliefs. We also face the challenge of maintaining a modicum of resilience and wellness in ourselves, which can be antidotes to entropy.

It’s impossible to stop the inevitability of rising entropy, both physical and psychological, but psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must invest their skills and talents now more than ever to at least slow down the pace of entropy among our patients. Otherwise, psychological chaos and disorder will be quite damaging to their lives, and worsen their outcomes.

According to the second law of thermo­dynamics, it is inevitable that entropy will continue to increase over time.¹ Entropy is a measure of disorder, which can eventuate in chaos and lead to profound uncertainty, with serious psychological consequences.

The increase in entropy is usually gradual. It took hundreds of years for powerful empires and civilizations to collapse and disappear. Inanimate objects such as a house, a piece of furniture, or a piece of equipment eventually deteriorate and break down over time. Tidy offices will become messy, cluttered, and dirty unless attended to regularly. Living organisms, including humans, inevitably undergo an aging process with cell­ular senescence, atrophy, and loss of cerebral, muscle, and bone tissue, ending in death. Even human relationships will eventually fracture, wither, and end. The passage of time ruthlessly increases the entropy of everything in life. Even the 13-billion-year-old universe, which currently looks formidable and permanent to us, is inexorably expanding and hurtling towards a calamitous end a few billion years from now.

To slow down, halt, or reverse entropy, work and energy must be invested. A house requires regular maintenance for all its components to avoid deteriorating and becoming uninhabitable (very high entropy). Humans require massive amounts of work during fetal life, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and throughout old age. This includes work by parents, teachers, friends, physicians, farmers, and manufacturers of food, clothing, and sundry supplies, all targeted to maintain an individual and slow the rate of entropy. But death is inevitable as the final stage of human entropy.

The brain is an entropic organ.² Psychiatric disorders can be conceptualized as a neurobiologic consequence of a major rise in brain entropy. The chaos created by high brain entropy will lead to a disruption of basic mental functions such as thought, mood, affect, impulses, behavior, and cognition. Brain entropy increases can be due to genetics or the environment, but most often are due an interaction of both (G x E).

Societal entropy and our patients

Psychiatric patients are deeply influenced by the context in which they live (society). The entropy of contemporary society is rising at an alarming rate, which means that order is rapidly degenerating into disorder at an unprecedented pace. When the COVID-19 pandemic abruptly emerged in early 2020, it was a major public health shock that drastically changed the lives of all citizens and dramatically increased societal entropy. The pandemic led to lockdowns, fear of death, gut-wrenching uncertainty (especially for a whole year before vaccines were developed, but even after), loss of socialization and sexual intimacy, loss of employment, financial straits, and an inability to access routine medical or surgical procedures. Everyone in society developed anxiety and acute stress reaction, but those with pre-existing psychiatric disorders suffered the most with an intensification of their symptoms.

The unforeseen, sudden, and traumatically life-altering pandemic triggered various degrees of posttraumatic stress disorder across all age groups, and painful death in medically compromised individuals and older adults. Both physical and psychological entropy skyrocketed and the “order” of life as we knew it rapidly disintegrated into shambles and disorder. The abrupt traumatic jolt triggered various degrees of deleterious impacts on the brains of all who experienced it in real time. The rise in the psychobiological entropy was unprecedented across the structures of society, especially the population, its vulnerable human component.

But even as the worst of the pandemic is in our rearview mirror and life again has a semblance of normality, the rise of entropy continues to accelerate because we continue to be surrounded and engulfed by countless stressful events in contemporary society. Those nagging stresses continue to transmute order to chaos and metamorphose comforting predictability to entrenched uncertainty:

• Toxic political hyperpartisanship, with intense animus and visceral bi­directional hatred
• Racial tensions, with overt bias across groups
• Economic turmoil, with inflation and threats of recession
• Actual wars and threats of war
• Social media that spreads bad news and distorts facts
• An opioid crisis, with hundreds of thousands of deaths
• Skyrocketing crime, with a decline in policing and quick release of criminals without bail
• A ruthless and arbitrary “cancel culture” that doesn’t even spare the previously revered founders of the republic
• Cognitive dissonance of disparaging Abraham Lincoln despite his major achievement of eliminating slavery by waging a civil war
• The social and medical strife regarding access to abortion.

Continue to: I also would include...

(I also would include some “entropy pet peeves” of mine: Torn clothes as a fashion statement, transforming tattoos from an oddity to a fad, nose rings that disfigure pretty faces, and banishing neckties for men.)

Our role in this scenario

As psychiatrists, we must step up to intensify the work needed to slow down and even reverse the dangerously rising brain entropy in our patients. But that is not an easy task given the implosion of societal norms and traditional values, along with the radicalization of beliefs, with utter intolerance of others’ beliefs. We also face the challenge of maintaining a modicum of resilience and wellness in ourselves, which can be antidotes to entropy.

It’s impossible to stop the inevitability of rising entropy, both physical and psychological, but psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must invest their skills and talents now more than ever to at least slow down the pace of entropy among our patients. Otherwise, psychological chaos and disorder will be quite damaging to their lives, and worsen their outcomes.

According to the second law of thermo­dynamics, it is inevitable that entropy will continue to increase over time.¹ Entropy is a measure of disorder, which can eventuate in chaos and lead to profound uncertainty, with serious psychological consequences.

The increase in entropy is usually gradual. It took hundreds of years for powerful empires and civilizations to collapse and disappear. Inanimate objects such as a house, a piece of furniture, or a piece of equipment eventually deteriorate and break down over time. Tidy offices will become messy, cluttered, and dirty unless attended to regularly. Living organisms, including humans, inevitably undergo an aging process with cell­ular senescence, atrophy, and loss of cerebral, muscle, and bone tissue, ending in death. Even human relationships will eventually fracture, wither, and end. The passage of time ruthlessly increases the entropy of everything in life. Even the 13-billion-year-old universe, which currently looks formidable and permanent to us, is inexorably expanding and hurtling towards a calamitous end a few billion years from now.

To slow down, halt, or reverse entropy, work and energy must be invested. A house requires regular maintenance for all its components to avoid deteriorating and becoming uninhabitable (very high entropy). Humans require massive amounts of work during fetal life, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and throughout old age. This includes work by parents, teachers, friends, physicians, farmers, and manufacturers of food, clothing, and sundry supplies, all targeted to maintain an individual and slow the rate of entropy. But death is inevitable as the final stage of human entropy.

The brain is an entropic organ.² Psychiatric disorders can be conceptualized as a neurobiologic consequence of a major rise in brain entropy. The chaos created by high brain entropy will lead to a disruption of basic mental functions such as thought, mood, affect, impulses, behavior, and cognition. Brain entropy increases can be due to genetics or the environment, but most often are due an interaction of both (G x E).

Societal entropy and our patients

Psychiatric patients are deeply influenced by the context in which they live (society). The entropy of contemporary society is rising at an alarming rate, which means that order is rapidly degenerating into disorder at an unprecedented pace. When the COVID-19 pandemic abruptly emerged in early 2020, it was a major public health shock that drastically changed the lives of all citizens and dramatically increased societal entropy. The pandemic led to lockdowns, fear of death, gut-wrenching uncertainty (especially for a whole year before vaccines were developed, but even after), loss of socialization and sexual intimacy, loss of employment, financial straits, and an inability to access routine medical or surgical procedures. Everyone in society developed anxiety and acute stress reaction, but those with pre-existing psychiatric disorders suffered the most with an intensification of their symptoms.

The unforeseen, sudden, and traumatically life-altering pandemic triggered various degrees of posttraumatic stress disorder across all age groups, and painful death in medically compromised individuals and older adults. Both physical and psychological entropy skyrocketed and the “order” of life as we knew it rapidly disintegrated into shambles and disorder. The abrupt traumatic jolt triggered various degrees of deleterious impacts on the brains of all who experienced it in real time. The rise in the psychobiological entropy was unprecedented across the structures of society, especially the population, its vulnerable human component.

But even as the worst of the pandemic is in our rearview mirror and life again has a semblance of normality, the rise of entropy continues to accelerate because we continue to be surrounded and engulfed by countless stressful events in contemporary society. Those nagging stresses continue to transmute order to chaos and metamorphose comforting predictability to entrenched uncertainty:

• Toxic political hyperpartisanship, with intense animus and visceral bi­directional hatred
• Racial tensions, with overt bias across groups
• Economic turmoil, with inflation and threats of recession
• Actual wars and threats of war
• Social media that spreads bad news and distorts facts
• An opioid crisis, with hundreds of thousands of deaths
• Skyrocketing crime, with a decline in policing and quick release of criminals without bail
• A ruthless and arbitrary “cancel culture” that doesn’t even spare the previously revered founders of the republic
• Cognitive dissonance of disparaging Abraham Lincoln despite his major achievement of eliminating slavery by waging a civil war
• The social and medical strife regarding access to abortion.

Continue to: I also would include...

(I also would include some “entropy pet peeves” of mine: Torn clothes as a fashion statement, transforming tattoos from an oddity to a fad, nose rings that disfigure pretty faces, and banishing neckties for men.)

Our role in this scenario

As psychiatrists, we must step up to intensify the work needed to slow down and even reverse the dangerously rising brain entropy in our patients. But that is not an easy task given the implosion of societal norms and traditional values, along with the radicalization of beliefs, with utter intolerance of others’ beliefs. We also face the challenge of maintaining a modicum of resilience and wellness in ourselves, which can be antidotes to entropy.

It’s impossible to stop the inevitability of rising entropy, both physical and psychological, but psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must invest their skills and talents now more than ever to at least slow down the pace of entropy among our patients. Otherwise, psychological chaos and disorder will be quite damaging to their lives, and worsen their outcomes.

Murray et al have written a timely, thoughtful, and useful article (“Smoking cessation: Varenicline and the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events,” Current Psychiatry, July 2022, p. 41-45) about the role of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist varenicline for helping patients stop smoking, which is still the main preventable cause of morbidity and premature death. Smoking remains a major problem among patients who are chronically mentally ill and those with substance use disorders, as well as “recovering” populations such as Alcoholic Anonymous participants.¹ Reviews of the EAGLES trial and other research analyses have gone a long way to allaying anxiety about interventions for smoking cessation.²

Just a few caveats regarding Murray et al’s excellent summary:

• The article did not address that nicotine is consumed in multiple ways, such as vaping, snuff, chewing tobacco, and hookah

• The safety of varenicline appears fair when psychiatric illness is well controlled but can be problematic (and even severely detrimental) when mental illness is not well controlled. This should not be glossed over, especially since it was the reason for the original black-box warning (for risks including behavioral impulsivity, suicidality, severe insomnia, and nightmares) that was removed in 2016

• Patients with severe mental illness may not fully understand the risks, benefits, and priorities of the treatment intervention. The importance of psychiatric and internal medicine in addition to pharmacy follow-up is critical and needs to be documented.

Varenicline has been contextualized in its current role as a first-line treatment for smoking cessation. By bypassing a sizeable population of patients who have unstable psychiatric illness (especially bipolar I disorder), the path has been opened for risky “off-label” varenicline prescribing to this population by internists, who should be very cautious and prudent about prescribing for such patients. This alone is probably a good reason to reinstate the black-box warning.

Interestingly, one review found that only 1 of 11 patients receiving varenicline stopped smoking.¹ Not dramatically beneficial for a first-line treatment! Decreasing smoking occurs as well and is more robust with combinational use with bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

If we are focusing on patients with unstable mental illness—who are seen primarily by psychiatrists—adherence, urgency of intervention, and context regarding acute safety for this population must be seen as top priorities.

So-called “second-line” treatment options must also be considered. Sandiego et al³ make excellent points regarding the role of alpha-adrenergic agonists such as guanfacine, which have been shown to be helpful in smoking cessation. They work by decreasing cortical dopamine release and their calming effects on the noradrenergic system, which may decrease smoking precipitated by stress. For the particularly challenging subpopulation of unstable smokers, the combination of varenicline plus guanfacine ER may turn out to be a game-changer.

Varenicline has not proven itself to be useful in patients who are severely mentally ill, and due to its low success rate, expectations should remain tempered, pragmatically realistic, and safety-based.^4,5 The bottom line is that in an unstable psychiatrically ill patient, interventions other than varenicline should be first-line.

Murray et al have written a timely, thoughtful, and useful article (“Smoking cessation: Varenicline and the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events,” Current Psychiatry, July 2022, p. 41-45) about the role of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist varenicline for helping patients stop smoking, which is still the main preventable cause of morbidity and premature death. Smoking remains a major problem among patients who are chronically mentally ill and those with substance use disorders, as well as “recovering” populations such as Alcoholic Anonymous participants.¹ Reviews of the EAGLES trial and other research analyses have gone a long way to allaying anxiety about interventions for smoking cessation.²

Just a few caveats regarding Murray et al’s excellent summary:

• The article did not address that nicotine is consumed in multiple ways, such as vaping, snuff, chewing tobacco, and hookah

• The safety of varenicline appears fair when psychiatric illness is well controlled but can be problematic (and even severely detrimental) when mental illness is not well controlled. This should not be glossed over, especially since it was the reason for the original black-box warning (for risks including behavioral impulsivity, suicidality, severe insomnia, and nightmares) that was removed in 2016

• Patients with severe mental illness may not fully understand the risks, benefits, and priorities of the treatment intervention. The importance of psychiatric and internal medicine in addition to pharmacy follow-up is critical and needs to be documented.

Varenicline has been contextualized in its current role as a first-line treatment for smoking cessation. By bypassing a sizeable population of patients who have unstable psychiatric illness (especially bipolar I disorder), the path has been opened for risky “off-label” varenicline prescribing to this population by internists, who should be very cautious and prudent about prescribing for such patients. This alone is probably a good reason to reinstate the black-box warning.

Interestingly, one review found that only 1 of 11 patients receiving varenicline stopped smoking.¹ Not dramatically beneficial for a first-line treatment! Decreasing smoking occurs as well and is more robust with combinational use with bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

If we are focusing on patients with unstable mental illness—who are seen primarily by psychiatrists—adherence, urgency of intervention, and context regarding acute safety for this population must be seen as top priorities.

So-called “second-line” treatment options must also be considered. Sandiego et al³ make excellent points regarding the role of alpha-adrenergic agonists such as guanfacine, which have been shown to be helpful in smoking cessation. They work by decreasing cortical dopamine release and their calming effects on the noradrenergic system, which may decrease smoking precipitated by stress. For the particularly challenging subpopulation of unstable smokers, the combination of varenicline plus guanfacine ER may turn out to be a game-changer.

Varenicline has not proven itself to be useful in patients who are severely mentally ill, and due to its low success rate, expectations should remain tempered, pragmatically realistic, and safety-based.^4,5 The bottom line is that in an unstable psychiatrically ill patient, interventions other than varenicline should be first-line.

Murray et al have written a timely, thoughtful, and useful article (“Smoking cessation: Varenicline and the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events,” Current Psychiatry, July 2022, p. 41-45) about the role of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist varenicline for helping patients stop smoking, which is still the main preventable cause of morbidity and premature death. Smoking remains a major problem among patients who are chronically mentally ill and those with substance use disorders, as well as “recovering” populations such as Alcoholic Anonymous participants.¹ Reviews of the EAGLES trial and other research analyses have gone a long way to allaying anxiety about interventions for smoking cessation.²

Just a few caveats regarding Murray et al’s excellent summary:

• The article did not address that nicotine is consumed in multiple ways, such as vaping, snuff, chewing tobacco, and hookah

• The safety of varenicline appears fair when psychiatric illness is well controlled but can be problematic (and even severely detrimental) when mental illness is not well controlled. This should not be glossed over, especially since it was the reason for the original black-box warning (for risks including behavioral impulsivity, suicidality, severe insomnia, and nightmares) that was removed in 2016

• Patients with severe mental illness may not fully understand the risks, benefits, and priorities of the treatment intervention. The importance of psychiatric and internal medicine in addition to pharmacy follow-up is critical and needs to be documented.

Varenicline has been contextualized in its current role as a first-line treatment for smoking cessation. By bypassing a sizeable population of patients who have unstable psychiatric illness (especially bipolar I disorder), the path has been opened for risky “off-label” varenicline prescribing to this population by internists, who should be very cautious and prudent about prescribing for such patients. This alone is probably a good reason to reinstate the black-box warning.

Interestingly, one review found that only 1 of 11 patients receiving varenicline stopped smoking.¹ Not dramatically beneficial for a first-line treatment! Decreasing smoking occurs as well and is more robust with combinational use with bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

If we are focusing on patients with unstable mental illness—who are seen primarily by psychiatrists—adherence, urgency of intervention, and context regarding acute safety for this population must be seen as top priorities.

So-called “second-line” treatment options must also be considered. Sandiego et al³ make excellent points regarding the role of alpha-adrenergic agonists such as guanfacine, which have been shown to be helpful in smoking cessation. They work by decreasing cortical dopamine release and their calming effects on the noradrenergic system, which may decrease smoking precipitated by stress. For the particularly challenging subpopulation of unstable smokers, the combination of varenicline plus guanfacine ER may turn out to be a game-changer.

Varenicline has not proven itself to be useful in patients who are severely mentally ill, and due to its low success rate, expectations should remain tempered, pragmatically realistic, and safety-based.^4,5 The bottom line is that in an unstable psychiatrically ill patient, interventions other than varenicline should be first-line.

I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.

Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing

From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.¹ Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.² Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.³

Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.⁴ Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.⁵ Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.⁶

In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,⁶ special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.⁷ Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.⁸

The psychiatrist’s role

Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.

I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.

Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing

From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.¹ Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.² Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.³

Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.⁴ Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.⁵ Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.⁶

In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,⁶ special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.⁷ Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.⁸

The psychiatrist’s role

Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.

I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.

Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing

From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.¹ Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.² Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.³

Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.⁴ Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.⁵ Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.⁶

In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,⁶ special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.⁷ Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.⁸

The psychiatrist’s role

Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.

In the second issue of GI & Hepatology News in February 2007, an article reviewed the disruptive forces to colonoscopy including CT colonography and the colon capsule. The article stated that “colonoscopy is still the preferred method, but the emerging technology could catch up in 3-5 years.”

While this prediction did not come to pass, the field of endoscopy has evolved in remarkable ways over the last 15 years. From the development of high-definition endoscopes to the transformation of interventional endoscopy to include “third space” procedures, previously unimaginable techniques have now become commonplace. This transformation has changed the nature and training of our field and, even more importantly, dramatically improved the care of our patients.

Just as notably, the regulatory and practice environment for endoscopy has also changed in the last 15 years, albeit at a slower pace. In January of 2007, as the first issue of GI & Hepatology News came out, Medicare announced that it would cover all screening procedures without a copay but left a loophole that charged patients if their screening colonoscopy became therapeutic. That loophole was finally fixed this year as GI & Hepatology News celebrates its 15-year anniversary.

If the past 15 years are any indication, endoscopy practice will continue to change at a humbling pace over the next 15 years. I look forward to seeing those changes unfold through the pages of GI & Hepatology News.
 

Dr. Gellad is associate professor of medicine and associate vice chair of ambulatory services at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He is also a staff physician with the Durham VA Health Care system. He disclosed ties with Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Higgs Boson Health.

In the second issue of GI & Hepatology News in February 2007, an article reviewed the disruptive forces to colonoscopy including CT colonography and the colon capsule. The article stated that “colonoscopy is still the preferred method, but the emerging technology could catch up in 3-5 years.”

While this prediction did not come to pass, the field of endoscopy has evolved in remarkable ways over the last 15 years. From the development of high-definition endoscopes to the transformation of interventional endoscopy to include “third space” procedures, previously unimaginable techniques have now become commonplace. This transformation has changed the nature and training of our field and, even more importantly, dramatically improved the care of our patients.

Just as notably, the regulatory and practice environment for endoscopy has also changed in the last 15 years, albeit at a slower pace. In January of 2007, as the first issue of GI & Hepatology News came out, Medicare announced that it would cover all screening procedures without a copay but left a loophole that charged patients if their screening colonoscopy became therapeutic. That loophole was finally fixed this year as GI & Hepatology News celebrates its 15-year anniversary.

If the past 15 years are any indication, endoscopy practice will continue to change at a humbling pace over the next 15 years. I look forward to seeing those changes unfold through the pages of GI & Hepatology News.
 

Dr. Gellad is associate professor of medicine and associate vice chair of ambulatory services at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He is also a staff physician with the Durham VA Health Care system. He disclosed ties with Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Higgs Boson Health.

In the second issue of GI & Hepatology News in February 2007, an article reviewed the disruptive forces to colonoscopy including CT colonography and the colon capsule. The article stated that “colonoscopy is still the preferred method, but the emerging technology could catch up in 3-5 years.”

While this prediction did not come to pass, the field of endoscopy has evolved in remarkable ways over the last 15 years. From the development of high-definition endoscopes to the transformation of interventional endoscopy to include “third space” procedures, previously unimaginable techniques have now become commonplace. This transformation has changed the nature and training of our field and, even more importantly, dramatically improved the care of our patients.

Just as notably, the regulatory and practice environment for endoscopy has also changed in the last 15 years, albeit at a slower pace. In January of 2007, as the first issue of GI & Hepatology News came out, Medicare announced that it would cover all screening procedures without a copay but left a loophole that charged patients if their screening colonoscopy became therapeutic. That loophole was finally fixed this year as GI & Hepatology News celebrates its 15-year anniversary.

If the past 15 years are any indication, endoscopy practice will continue to change at a humbling pace over the next 15 years. I look forward to seeing those changes unfold through the pages of GI & Hepatology News.
 

Dr. Gellad is associate professor of medicine and associate vice chair of ambulatory services at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He is also a staff physician with the Durham VA Health Care system. He disclosed ties with Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Higgs Boson Health.

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

In 2002, two landmark trials found that targeted temperature management (TTM) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest led to improvements in neurologic outcomes. The larger of the two trials found a reduction in mortality. Such treatment benefits are hard to come by in critical care in general and in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in particular. With the therapeutic overconfidence typical of our profession, my institution embraced TTM quickly and completely soon after these trials were published. Remember, this was “back in the day” when sepsis management included drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control (90-120 mg/dL), and horrible over-resuscitation via the early goal-directed therapy paradigm.

If you’ve been practicing critical care medicine for more than a few years, you already know where I’m going. Most of the interventions in the preceding paragraph were adopted but discarded before 2010. Though TTM has managed to stand the test of time, our confidence in its benefit has waned since 2002. Hypothermia – temperature management with a goal of 32-36° C – has been struggling to stay relevant ever since the publication of the TTM randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2013. Then came the HYPERION trial, which brought the 32-36° C target back from the dead (pun definitely intended) in 2019. This is critical care medicine: Today’s life-saving intervention proves harmful tomorrow, but withholding it may constitute malpractice a few months down the road.

So where are we now? Good question. I’ve had seasoned neurointensivists insist that 33° C remains the standard of care and others who’ve endorsed normothermia. So much for finding an answer via my more specialized colleagues.

Let’s go to the guidelines then. Prompted largely by HYPERION, a temperature target of 32-36° C was endorsed in 2020 and 2021. Then came publication of the TTM2 trial, the largest temperature management RCT to date, which found no benefit to targeting 33° C. A network meta-analysis published in 2021 reached a similar conclusion. A recently released update by the same international guideline group now recommends targeting normothermia (< 37.7° C) and avoiding fever, and it specifically says that there is insufficient evidence to support a 32-36° C target. Okay, everyone tracking all that?

Lest I sound overly catty and nihilistic, I see all this in a positive light. Huge credit goes to the critical care medicine academic community for putting together so many RCTs. The scientific reality is that it takes “a lotta” sample size to clarify the effects of an intervention. Throw in the inevitable bevy of confounders (in- vs. out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, resuscitation time, initial rhythm, and so on), and you get a feel for the work required to understand a treatment’s true effects.

Advances in guideline science and the hard, often unpaid work of panels are also important. The guideline panel I’ve been citing came out for aggressive temperature control (32-36° C) a few months before the TTM2 RCT was published. In the past, they updated their recommendations every 5 years, but this time, they were out with a new manuscript that incorporated TTM2 in less than a year. If you’ve been involved at any level with producing guidelines, you can appreciate this achievement. Assuming that aggressive hypothermia is truly harmful, waiting 5 years to incorporate TTM2 could have led to significant morbidity.

I do take issue with you early adopters, though. Given the litany of failed therapies that have shown initial promise, and the well-documented human tendency to underestimate the impact of sample size, your rapid implementation of major interventions is puzzling. One might think you’d learned your lessons after seeing drotrecogin alfa, Cortrosyn stim tests, tight glucose control, early goal-directed therapy, and aggressive TTM come and go. Your recent enthusiasm for vitamin C after publication of a single before-after study suggests that you haven’t.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. He has received a research grant from Fisher-Paykel.

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

Shortly after osimertinib was approved for patients with non–small cell lung cancer in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration, a patient came to me with increasing shortness of breath. He had been on erlotinib (Tarceva) for about 2 years and had done well. Nearly all of his pulmonary lesions had resolved and he was feeling well. He enjoyed boating in the summer and visiting grandkids in California in the winter. However, on this day, it was different. He was losing weight; he was tired and didn’t feel strong enough to put his boat in the water that spring. Long story short: We ordered a CT scan and all of his lesions were progressing. Since osimertinib had just been approved, we got a second biopsy, hoping that his insurance would pay for it. It did and sure enough, a new T790M mutation was present. He was on osimertinib for another 2 years before progressing and starting chemotherapy.

Second biopsies increasingly routine

The practice of ordering a second biopsy for patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) was not common practice until after 2015 when the Food and Drug Administration approved gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutations.

Up until then, second biopsies were not routinely done for lung cancers. But with the advent of targeted therapy and new drugs designed specifically to tackle first- and second-line treatment resistance mutations, rebiopsies have become a necessity for patients with progressive disease.

Epidermal growth factors, including HER2, ErbB2, and MET, are receptors of tyrosine kinases that control cell growth, but when in overdrive, they can lead to the development of cancers, including lung adenocarcinoma, conventional glioblastoma multiforme, glioblastoma, colon adenocarcinoma, and NSCLC.

EGFRs date back to 1962 with their discovery by Stanley Cohen. The discovery was so important that in 1986, Mr. Cohen was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery along with Rita Levi-Montalcini.

Now, many years later, we finally have a string of new approvals for mutations in the EGF family of receptors and several under study.

Sensitizing mutations

The more commonly used strategy for blocking EGFR signaling in lung cancer is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which compete with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for binding to the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor. They are located at chromosome 7p11.2. The most frequent mutations that sensitize patients to EGFR inhibitors include exon 19 deletions and L858R point mutation in exon 21, although multiple other driver mutations also exist.

The first-generation of EGFR TKIs include gefitinib and erlotinib, which bind reversibly to the EGF receptor. Second-generation inhibitors afatinib and dacomitinib bind irreversibly. Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, which also binds irreversibly, was approved in 2020 for adjuvant therapy, and first- and second-line treatment in patients with NSCLC who have EGFR mutation–positive disease.
 

First-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Four randomized, first-line, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials conducted with EGFR TKIs in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in an EGFR nonselected patient population failed to show a survival benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib (TRIBUTE, Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial, INTACT 1, INTACT 2).

However, a first-line study randomized patients to gefitinib or chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, and included patients with or without an EGFR mutations. In the subgroup of patients with an EGFR mutation, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48), whereas in the subgroup of patients who were negative for the mutation, PFS was significantly longer among those who received chemotherapy (HR for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85).

Numerous studies have shown that EGFR TKIs used in the first-line setting improved progression free survival, response rates, and quality of life while reducing toxicity. A recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving EGFR TKIs showed that EGFR TKI improved PFS with a HR of 0.40, compared with standard chemotherapy with fewer serious adverse events, although no benefit on overall survival was observed (HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .556).
 

T790M: The most common resistance mutation

T790M is the most common resistance mechanism to develop in patients with EGFR mutations being treated with EGFR TKIs. A randomized phase 3 trial of osimertinib vs. chemotherapy in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, reported a median duration of progression-free survival that was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.30). In addition, among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system, the median duration of PFS was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; HR, 0.32). However, now that osimertinib has moved into the front-line setting, it has left a void for the treatment of patients with advanced disease who have failed osimertinib.

New resistance mechanisms continue to be identified

One of the most common sets of resistance mutations are insertions in exon 20 of the EGF receptor gene. These are a heterogenous group of mutations, many of which do not respond to first-, second-, or third-generation TKIs. Some, such as EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA, may be sensitive to first- and third-generation EGFR TKIs. Other drugs targeting exon 20 insertion mutations are under development.

Newly approved by the FDA within the last year are mobocertinib and CLN-081 for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Savolitinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase (MET) inhibitor currently under development for NSCLC and other cancers. Amivantamab-vmjw was approved by the FDA last year for metastatic NSCLC. It targets EGF and MET receptors in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

We finally have approved drugs for exon 20 insertions and c-Met amplification, even though their approvals are based on small, single arm studies with no definitive claims of improved efficacy over older therapies. Taking a second biopsy will help determine which resistance mechanisms are active to better identify subsequent treatment as in my patient described in this article.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Shortly after osimertinib was approved for patients with non–small cell lung cancer in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration, a patient came to me with increasing shortness of breath. He had been on erlotinib (Tarceva) for about 2 years and had done well. Nearly all of his pulmonary lesions had resolved and he was feeling well. He enjoyed boating in the summer and visiting grandkids in California in the winter. However, on this day, it was different. He was losing weight; he was tired and didn’t feel strong enough to put his boat in the water that spring. Long story short: We ordered a CT scan and all of his lesions were progressing. Since osimertinib had just been approved, we got a second biopsy, hoping that his insurance would pay for it. It did and sure enough, a new T790M mutation was present. He was on osimertinib for another 2 years before progressing and starting chemotherapy.

Second biopsies increasingly routine

The practice of ordering a second biopsy for patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) was not common practice until after 2015 when the Food and Drug Administration approved gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutations.

Up until then, second biopsies were not routinely done for lung cancers. But with the advent of targeted therapy and new drugs designed specifically to tackle first- and second-line treatment resistance mutations, rebiopsies have become a necessity for patients with progressive disease.

Epidermal growth factors, including HER2, ErbB2, and MET, are receptors of tyrosine kinases that control cell growth, but when in overdrive, they can lead to the development of cancers, including lung adenocarcinoma, conventional glioblastoma multiforme, glioblastoma, colon adenocarcinoma, and NSCLC.

EGFRs date back to 1962 with their discovery by Stanley Cohen. The discovery was so important that in 1986, Mr. Cohen was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery along with Rita Levi-Montalcini.

Now, many years later, we finally have a string of new approvals for mutations in the EGF family of receptors and several under study.

Sensitizing mutations

The more commonly used strategy for blocking EGFR signaling in lung cancer is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which compete with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for binding to the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor. They are located at chromosome 7p11.2. The most frequent mutations that sensitize patients to EGFR inhibitors include exon 19 deletions and L858R point mutation in exon 21, although multiple other driver mutations also exist.

The first-generation of EGFR TKIs include gefitinib and erlotinib, which bind reversibly to the EGF receptor. Second-generation inhibitors afatinib and dacomitinib bind irreversibly. Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, which also binds irreversibly, was approved in 2020 for adjuvant therapy, and first- and second-line treatment in patients with NSCLC who have EGFR mutation–positive disease.
 

First-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Four randomized, first-line, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials conducted with EGFR TKIs in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in an EGFR nonselected patient population failed to show a survival benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib (TRIBUTE, Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial, INTACT 1, INTACT 2).

However, a first-line study randomized patients to gefitinib or chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, and included patients with or without an EGFR mutations. In the subgroup of patients with an EGFR mutation, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48), whereas in the subgroup of patients who were negative for the mutation, PFS was significantly longer among those who received chemotherapy (HR for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85).

Numerous studies have shown that EGFR TKIs used in the first-line setting improved progression free survival, response rates, and quality of life while reducing toxicity. A recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving EGFR TKIs showed that EGFR TKI improved PFS with a HR of 0.40, compared with standard chemotherapy with fewer serious adverse events, although no benefit on overall survival was observed (HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .556).
 

T790M: The most common resistance mutation

T790M is the most common resistance mechanism to develop in patients with EGFR mutations being treated with EGFR TKIs. A randomized phase 3 trial of osimertinib vs. chemotherapy in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, reported a median duration of progression-free survival that was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.30). In addition, among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system, the median duration of PFS was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; HR, 0.32). However, now that osimertinib has moved into the front-line setting, it has left a void for the treatment of patients with advanced disease who have failed osimertinib.

New resistance mechanisms continue to be identified

One of the most common sets of resistance mutations are insertions in exon 20 of the EGF receptor gene. These are a heterogenous group of mutations, many of which do not respond to first-, second-, or third-generation TKIs. Some, such as EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA, may be sensitive to first- and third-generation EGFR TKIs. Other drugs targeting exon 20 insertion mutations are under development.

Newly approved by the FDA within the last year are mobocertinib and CLN-081 for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Savolitinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase (MET) inhibitor currently under development for NSCLC and other cancers. Amivantamab-vmjw was approved by the FDA last year for metastatic NSCLC. It targets EGF and MET receptors in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

We finally have approved drugs for exon 20 insertions and c-Met amplification, even though their approvals are based on small, single arm studies with no definitive claims of improved efficacy over older therapies. Taking a second biopsy will help determine which resistance mechanisms are active to better identify subsequent treatment as in my patient described in this article.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Shortly after osimertinib was approved for patients with non–small cell lung cancer in 2020 by the Food and Drug Administration, a patient came to me with increasing shortness of breath. He had been on erlotinib (Tarceva) for about 2 years and had done well. Nearly all of his pulmonary lesions had resolved and he was feeling well. He enjoyed boating in the summer and visiting grandkids in California in the winter. However, on this day, it was different. He was losing weight; he was tired and didn’t feel strong enough to put his boat in the water that spring. Long story short: We ordered a CT scan and all of his lesions were progressing. Since osimertinib had just been approved, we got a second biopsy, hoping that his insurance would pay for it. It did and sure enough, a new T790M mutation was present. He was on osimertinib for another 2 years before progressing and starting chemotherapy.

Second biopsies increasingly routine

The practice of ordering a second biopsy for patients with non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) was not common practice until after 2015 when the Food and Drug Administration approved gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for patients whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutations.

Up until then, second biopsies were not routinely done for lung cancers. But with the advent of targeted therapy and new drugs designed specifically to tackle first- and second-line treatment resistance mutations, rebiopsies have become a necessity for patients with progressive disease.

Epidermal growth factors, including HER2, ErbB2, and MET, are receptors of tyrosine kinases that control cell growth, but when in overdrive, they can lead to the development of cancers, including lung adenocarcinoma, conventional glioblastoma multiforme, glioblastoma, colon adenocarcinoma, and NSCLC.

EGFRs date back to 1962 with their discovery by Stanley Cohen. The discovery was so important that in 1986, Mr. Cohen was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery along with Rita Levi-Montalcini.

Now, many years later, we finally have a string of new approvals for mutations in the EGF family of receptors and several under study.

Sensitizing mutations

The more commonly used strategy for blocking EGFR signaling in lung cancer is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which compete with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for binding to the tyrosine kinase portion of the receptor. They are located at chromosome 7p11.2. The most frequent mutations that sensitize patients to EGFR inhibitors include exon 19 deletions and L858R point mutation in exon 21, although multiple other driver mutations also exist.

The first-generation of EGFR TKIs include gefitinib and erlotinib, which bind reversibly to the EGF receptor. Second-generation inhibitors afatinib and dacomitinib bind irreversibly. Osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, which also binds irreversibly, was approved in 2020 for adjuvant therapy, and first- and second-line treatment in patients with NSCLC who have EGFR mutation–positive disease.
 

First-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Four randomized, first-line, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials conducted with EGFR TKIs in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in an EGFR nonselected patient population failed to show a survival benefit with erlotinib or gefitinib (TRIBUTE, Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial, INTACT 1, INTACT 2).

However, a first-line study randomized patients to gefitinib or chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, and included patients with or without an EGFR mutations. In the subgroup of patients with an EGFR mutation, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin–paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48), whereas in the subgroup of patients who were negative for the mutation, PFS was significantly longer among those who received chemotherapy (HR for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85).

Numerous studies have shown that EGFR TKIs used in the first-line setting improved progression free survival, response rates, and quality of life while reducing toxicity. A recent meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving EGFR TKIs showed that EGFR TKI improved PFS with a HR of 0.40, compared with standard chemotherapy with fewer serious adverse events, although no benefit on overall survival was observed (HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.10; P = .556).
 

T790M: The most common resistance mutation

T790M is the most common resistance mechanism to develop in patients with EGFR mutations being treated with EGFR TKIs. A randomized phase 3 trial of osimertinib vs. chemotherapy in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, reported a median duration of progression-free survival that was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.30). In addition, among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system, the median duration of PFS was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; HR, 0.32). However, now that osimertinib has moved into the front-line setting, it has left a void for the treatment of patients with advanced disease who have failed osimertinib.

New resistance mechanisms continue to be identified

One of the most common sets of resistance mutations are insertions in exon 20 of the EGF receptor gene. These are a heterogenous group of mutations, many of which do not respond to first-, second-, or third-generation TKIs. Some, such as EGFR-A763_Y764insFQEA, may be sensitive to first- and third-generation EGFR TKIs. Other drugs targeting exon 20 insertion mutations are under development.

Newly approved by the FDA within the last year are mobocertinib and CLN-081 for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Savolitinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase (MET) inhibitor currently under development for NSCLC and other cancers. Amivantamab-vmjw was approved by the FDA last year for metastatic NSCLC. It targets EGF and MET receptors in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

We finally have approved drugs for exon 20 insertions and c-Met amplification, even though their approvals are based on small, single arm studies with no definitive claims of improved efficacy over older therapies. Taking a second biopsy will help determine which resistance mechanisms are active to better identify subsequent treatment as in my patient described in this article.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at Oxford. As I’m gearing up to have my autumnal COVID-19 booster vaccine, there’s a small controversy raging in the United Kingdom about access to a medicine called Evusheld.

This was developed by AstraZeneca. It’s a combination of two relatively long-acting antibodies (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) that bind to the spike protein on the outside of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-19. The antibody binds to the spike protein and prevents it from binding to and infecting or damaging cells, so it’s what’s called preexposure prophylaxis.

Although vaccination is still the best approach to protecting against and, one would hope, conferring a degree of herd protection to our population as a whole, there are some people who cannot mount an appropriate immune response and we have to take care of these folks. Because the vaccines don’t work very well for them, the vaccine itself is not sufficient to protect them.

Evusheld, in trials that have been done hitherto, can protect people who can’t mount an immune response from being infected. Between 75% and 80% of patients treated with Evusheld didn’t get COVID-19. The duration of effect seemed to be at least for 6 months, possibly longer, so it’s a really good result. This caused our medicines regulatory authority in the United Kingdom to approve the drug in March of this year. Although the drug has been approved, it’s not yet funded and not yet available for vulnerable patients.

These are patients who, for reasons of inborn genetic diseases, cannot mount an immune response; patients who are pharmacologically immune depleted; patients who have had transplants and are on immunosuppressive drugs; and some of our cancer patients, particularly those with blood or hematologic malignancies, who can receive very heavy treatment that can pound the immune system to bits.

These are, in the population as a whole, relatively small numbers, but an important number of people who are still vulnerable to developing COVID-19 despite vaccination.

Why isn’t the drug available? We have a two-stage process in the United Kingdom. We have the scientists and regulatory authorities looking at the evidence and data and saying, “Yes, it stacks up. This drug is effective and safe to some extent.”

The second phase is a health technology assessment undertaken by NICE, our National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – something that I’ve talked about a number of times before and the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions that they make. NICE hasn’t evaluated the drug yet, and the British government has held out because they are arguing that we don’t have enough data.

The trials with Evusheld were done before the Omicron variant dominated, as it does now; therefore, they are looking to try to work with AstraZeneca to generate more real-world data to show that Evusheld would prevent infection from the Omicron variant of the virus. Equally as important, how long does that protection last? Is it as protective against Omicron, and what’s the duration of that protection? Those bits of work are going on now.

Some real-world data are starting to emerge, showing that Evusheld will offer some degree of protection against Omicron, but there are still question marks about duration and the proportion of the population that would benefit.

NICE aren’t due to report on this – although the drug was approved in March of this year – until next year some time. That’s what’s caused a degree of consternation in the community of patients that we serve. Some of my clinical colleagues are beating the drum, saying, “We must have this drug now.” We’re still waiting on NICE to announce.

One obvious way to go around this is the government, which has bent over backwards in the United Kingdom to do as much as it can to protect the population from COVID-19. There was fantastic vaccine rollout and an extraordinary economic package to support individuals during lockdown to maintain the workforce, to support families and people at home. They’ve done a fantastic job.

Wanting to damp down this controversy, perhaps the sensible thing would be to ask NICE to evaluate the data that they have just now, to allow AstraZeneca to present whatever real-world evidence they have, and although it may not be perfect, it may be sufficient – we don’t know – to pass the NICE health technology assessment.

Watch this space. Let’s see what happens. If I were government, that’s what I would do. I would ask NICE to bring their appraisal forward. I would ask them to work with AstraZeneca to go over every ounce and iota of data that they have to see if this drug will be sufficiently effective and sufficiently cost-effective to be used before winter comes. I think the whole world is holding its breath, expecting another COVID-19 winter surge. Now would be the time to act.

What do you think? Here we are in the United Kingdom discussing yet another quasi–”health-rationing” problem. It’s not. This is about collecting more data and being as rational as possible. Can we accelerate that process? Perhaps.

Thanks for listening. I’d be very grateful for any comments that you might choose to make.
 

David J. Kerr, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He disclosed financial relationships with Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, Roche, and Celleron Therapeutics.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at Oxford. As I’m gearing up to have my autumnal COVID-19 booster vaccine, there’s a small controversy raging in the United Kingdom about access to a medicine called Evusheld.

This was developed by AstraZeneca. It’s a combination of two relatively long-acting antibodies (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) that bind to the spike protein on the outside of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-19. The antibody binds to the spike protein and prevents it from binding to and infecting or damaging cells, so it’s what’s called preexposure prophylaxis.

Although vaccination is still the best approach to protecting against and, one would hope, conferring a degree of herd protection to our population as a whole, there are some people who cannot mount an appropriate immune response and we have to take care of these folks. Because the vaccines don’t work very well for them, the vaccine itself is not sufficient to protect them.

Evusheld, in trials that have been done hitherto, can protect people who can’t mount an immune response from being infected. Between 75% and 80% of patients treated with Evusheld didn’t get COVID-19. The duration of effect seemed to be at least for 6 months, possibly longer, so it’s a really good result. This caused our medicines regulatory authority in the United Kingdom to approve the drug in March of this year. Although the drug has been approved, it’s not yet funded and not yet available for vulnerable patients.

These are patients who, for reasons of inborn genetic diseases, cannot mount an immune response; patients who are pharmacologically immune depleted; patients who have had transplants and are on immunosuppressive drugs; and some of our cancer patients, particularly those with blood or hematologic malignancies, who can receive very heavy treatment that can pound the immune system to bits.

These are, in the population as a whole, relatively small numbers, but an important number of people who are still vulnerable to developing COVID-19 despite vaccination.

Why isn’t the drug available? We have a two-stage process in the United Kingdom. We have the scientists and regulatory authorities looking at the evidence and data and saying, “Yes, it stacks up. This drug is effective and safe to some extent.”

The second phase is a health technology assessment undertaken by NICE, our National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – something that I’ve talked about a number of times before and the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions that they make. NICE hasn’t evaluated the drug yet, and the British government has held out because they are arguing that we don’t have enough data.

The trials with Evusheld were done before the Omicron variant dominated, as it does now; therefore, they are looking to try to work with AstraZeneca to generate more real-world data to show that Evusheld would prevent infection from the Omicron variant of the virus. Equally as important, how long does that protection last? Is it as protective against Omicron, and what’s the duration of that protection? Those bits of work are going on now.

Some real-world data are starting to emerge, showing that Evusheld will offer some degree of protection against Omicron, but there are still question marks about duration and the proportion of the population that would benefit.

NICE aren’t due to report on this – although the drug was approved in March of this year – until next year some time. That’s what’s caused a degree of consternation in the community of patients that we serve. Some of my clinical colleagues are beating the drum, saying, “We must have this drug now.” We’re still waiting on NICE to announce.

One obvious way to go around this is the government, which has bent over backwards in the United Kingdom to do as much as it can to protect the population from COVID-19. There was fantastic vaccine rollout and an extraordinary economic package to support individuals during lockdown to maintain the workforce, to support families and people at home. They’ve done a fantastic job.

Wanting to damp down this controversy, perhaps the sensible thing would be to ask NICE to evaluate the data that they have just now, to allow AstraZeneca to present whatever real-world evidence they have, and although it may not be perfect, it may be sufficient – we don’t know – to pass the NICE health technology assessment.

Watch this space. Let’s see what happens. If I were government, that’s what I would do. I would ask NICE to bring their appraisal forward. I would ask them to work with AstraZeneca to go over every ounce and iota of data that they have to see if this drug will be sufficiently effective and sufficiently cost-effective to be used before winter comes. I think the whole world is holding its breath, expecting another COVID-19 winter surge. Now would be the time to act.

What do you think? Here we are in the United Kingdom discussing yet another quasi–”health-rationing” problem. It’s not. This is about collecting more data and being as rational as possible. Can we accelerate that process? Perhaps.

Thanks for listening. I’d be very grateful for any comments that you might choose to make.
 

David J. Kerr, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He disclosed financial relationships with Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, Roche, and Celleron Therapeutics.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at Oxford. As I’m gearing up to have my autumnal COVID-19 booster vaccine, there’s a small controversy raging in the United Kingdom about access to a medicine called Evusheld.

This was developed by AstraZeneca. It’s a combination of two relatively long-acting antibodies (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) that bind to the spike protein on the outside of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-19. The antibody binds to the spike protein and prevents it from binding to and infecting or damaging cells, so it’s what’s called preexposure prophylaxis.

Although vaccination is still the best approach to protecting against and, one would hope, conferring a degree of herd protection to our population as a whole, there are some people who cannot mount an appropriate immune response and we have to take care of these folks. Because the vaccines don’t work very well for them, the vaccine itself is not sufficient to protect them.

Evusheld, in trials that have been done hitherto, can protect people who can’t mount an immune response from being infected. Between 75% and 80% of patients treated with Evusheld didn’t get COVID-19. The duration of effect seemed to be at least for 6 months, possibly longer, so it’s a really good result. This caused our medicines regulatory authority in the United Kingdom to approve the drug in March of this year. Although the drug has been approved, it’s not yet funded and not yet available for vulnerable patients.

These are patients who, for reasons of inborn genetic diseases, cannot mount an immune response; patients who are pharmacologically immune depleted; patients who have had transplants and are on immunosuppressive drugs; and some of our cancer patients, particularly those with blood or hematologic malignancies, who can receive very heavy treatment that can pound the immune system to bits.

These are, in the population as a whole, relatively small numbers, but an important number of people who are still vulnerable to developing COVID-19 despite vaccination.

Why isn’t the drug available? We have a two-stage process in the United Kingdom. We have the scientists and regulatory authorities looking at the evidence and data and saying, “Yes, it stacks up. This drug is effective and safe to some extent.”

The second phase is a health technology assessment undertaken by NICE, our National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – something that I’ve talked about a number of times before and the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions that they make. NICE hasn’t evaluated the drug yet, and the British government has held out because they are arguing that we don’t have enough data.

The trials with Evusheld were done before the Omicron variant dominated, as it does now; therefore, they are looking to try to work with AstraZeneca to generate more real-world data to show that Evusheld would prevent infection from the Omicron variant of the virus. Equally as important, how long does that protection last? Is it as protective against Omicron, and what’s the duration of that protection? Those bits of work are going on now.

Some real-world data are starting to emerge, showing that Evusheld will offer some degree of protection against Omicron, but there are still question marks about duration and the proportion of the population that would benefit.

NICE aren’t due to report on this – although the drug was approved in March of this year – until next year some time. That’s what’s caused a degree of consternation in the community of patients that we serve. Some of my clinical colleagues are beating the drum, saying, “We must have this drug now.” We’re still waiting on NICE to announce.

One obvious way to go around this is the government, which has bent over backwards in the United Kingdom to do as much as it can to protect the population from COVID-19. There was fantastic vaccine rollout and an extraordinary economic package to support individuals during lockdown to maintain the workforce, to support families and people at home. They’ve done a fantastic job.

Wanting to damp down this controversy, perhaps the sensible thing would be to ask NICE to evaluate the data that they have just now, to allow AstraZeneca to present whatever real-world evidence they have, and although it may not be perfect, it may be sufficient – we don’t know – to pass the NICE health technology assessment.

Watch this space. Let’s see what happens. If I were government, that’s what I would do. I would ask NICE to bring their appraisal forward. I would ask them to work with AstraZeneca to go over every ounce and iota of data that they have to see if this drug will be sufficiently effective and sufficiently cost-effective to be used before winter comes. I think the whole world is holding its breath, expecting another COVID-19 winter surge. Now would be the time to act.

What do you think? Here we are in the United Kingdom discussing yet another quasi–”health-rationing” problem. It’s not. This is about collecting more data and being as rational as possible. Can we accelerate that process? Perhaps.

Thanks for listening. I’d be very grateful for any comments that you might choose to make.
 

David J. Kerr, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford (England). He disclosed financial relationships with Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, Roche, and Celleron Therapeutics.

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

This transcript of Impact Factor with F. Perry Wilson has been edited for clarity.

It was 100 years ago when Leonard Thompson, age 13, received a reprieve from a death sentence. Young master Thompson had type 1 diabetes, a disease that was uniformly fatal within months of diagnosis. But he received a new treatment, insulin, from a canine pancreas. He would live 13 more years before dying at age 26 of pneumonia.

The history of type 1 diabetes since that time has been a battle on two fronts: First, the search for a cause of and cure for the disease; second, the effort to make the administration of insulin safer, more reliable, and easier.

The past 2 decades have seen a technological revolution in type 1 diabetes care, with continuous glucose monitors decreasing the need for painful finger sticks, and insulin pumps allowing for more precise titration of doses.

The dream, of course, has been to combine those two technologies, continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps, to create so-called closed-loop systems – basically an artificial pancreas – that would obviate the need for any intervention on the part of the patient, save the occasional refilling of an insulin reservoir.

We aren’t there yet, but we are closer than ever.

Closed-loop systems for insulin delivery, like the Tandem Control IQ system, are a marvel of technology, but they are not exactly hands-free. Users need to dial in settings for their insulin usage, count carbohydrates at meals, and inform the system that they are about to eat those meals to allow the algorithm to administer an appropriate insulin dose.

The perceived complexity of these systems may be responsible for why there are substantial disparities in the prescription of closed-loop systems. Kids of lower socioeconomic status are dramatically less likely to receive these advanced technologies. Providers may feel that patients with lower health literacy or social supports are not “ideal” for these technologies, even though they lead to demonstrably better outcomes.

That means that easier might be better. And a “bionic pancreas,” as reported in an article from The New England Journal of Medicine, is exactly that.

Broadly, it’s another closed-loop system. The bionic pancreas integrates with a continuous glucose monitor and administers insulin when needed. But the algorithm appears to be a bit smarter than what we have in existing devices. For example, patients do not need to provide any information about their usual insulin doses – just their body weight. They don’t need to count carbohydrates at meals – just to inform the device when they are eating, and whether the meal is the usual amount they eat, more, or less. The algorithm learns and adapts as it is used. Easy.

And in this randomized trial, easy does it.

A total of 219 participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the bionic pancreas or usual diabetes care, though it was required that control participants use a continuous glucose monitor. Participants were as young as 6 years old and up to 79 years old; the majority were White and had a relatively high household income. The mean A1c was around 7.8% at baseline.

By the end of the study, the A1c was significantly improved in the bionic pancreas group, with a mean of 7.3% vs. 7.7% in the usual-care group.

This effect was most pronounced in those with a higher A1c at baseline.

People randomized to the bionic pancreas also spent more time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

All in all, the technology that makes it easy to manage your blood sugar, well, made it easy to manage your blood sugar.

But new technology is never without its hiccups. Those randomized to the bionic pancreas had a markedly higher rate of adverse events (244 events in 126 people compared with 10 events in 8 people in the usual-care group.)

This is actually a little misleading, though. The vast majority of these events were hyperglycemic episodes due to infusion set failures, which were reportable only in the bionic pancreas group. In other words, the patients in the control group who had an infusion set failure (assuming they were using an insulin pump at all) would have just called their regular doctor to get things sorted and not reported it to the study team.

Nevertheless, these adverse events – not serious, but common – highlight the fact that good software is not the only key to solving the closed-loop problem. We need good hardware too, hardware that can withstand the very active lives that children with type 1 diabetes deserve to live.

In short, the dream of a functional cure to type 1 diabetes, a true artificial pancreas, is closer than ever, but it’s still just a dream. With iterative advances like this, though, the reality may be here before you know it.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript of Impact Factor with F. Perry Wilson has been edited for clarity.

It was 100 years ago when Leonard Thompson, age 13, received a reprieve from a death sentence. Young master Thompson had type 1 diabetes, a disease that was uniformly fatal within months of diagnosis. But he received a new treatment, insulin, from a canine pancreas. He would live 13 more years before dying at age 26 of pneumonia.

The history of type 1 diabetes since that time has been a battle on two fronts: First, the search for a cause of and cure for the disease; second, the effort to make the administration of insulin safer, more reliable, and easier.

The past 2 decades have seen a technological revolution in type 1 diabetes care, with continuous glucose monitors decreasing the need for painful finger sticks, and insulin pumps allowing for more precise titration of doses.

The dream, of course, has been to combine those two technologies, continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps, to create so-called closed-loop systems – basically an artificial pancreas – that would obviate the need for any intervention on the part of the patient, save the occasional refilling of an insulin reservoir.

We aren’t there yet, but we are closer than ever.

Closed-loop systems for insulin delivery, like the Tandem Control IQ system, are a marvel of technology, but they are not exactly hands-free. Users need to dial in settings for their insulin usage, count carbohydrates at meals, and inform the system that they are about to eat those meals to allow the algorithm to administer an appropriate insulin dose.

The perceived complexity of these systems may be responsible for why there are substantial disparities in the prescription of closed-loop systems. Kids of lower socioeconomic status are dramatically less likely to receive these advanced technologies. Providers may feel that patients with lower health literacy or social supports are not “ideal” for these technologies, even though they lead to demonstrably better outcomes.

That means that easier might be better. And a “bionic pancreas,” as reported in an article from The New England Journal of Medicine, is exactly that.

Broadly, it’s another closed-loop system. The bionic pancreas integrates with a continuous glucose monitor and administers insulin when needed. But the algorithm appears to be a bit smarter than what we have in existing devices. For example, patients do not need to provide any information about their usual insulin doses – just their body weight. They don’t need to count carbohydrates at meals – just to inform the device when they are eating, and whether the meal is the usual amount they eat, more, or less. The algorithm learns and adapts as it is used. Easy.

And in this randomized trial, easy does it.

A total of 219 participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the bionic pancreas or usual diabetes care, though it was required that control participants use a continuous glucose monitor. Participants were as young as 6 years old and up to 79 years old; the majority were White and had a relatively high household income. The mean A1c was around 7.8% at baseline.

By the end of the study, the A1c was significantly improved in the bionic pancreas group, with a mean of 7.3% vs. 7.7% in the usual-care group.

This effect was most pronounced in those with a higher A1c at baseline.

People randomized to the bionic pancreas also spent more time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

All in all, the technology that makes it easy to manage your blood sugar, well, made it easy to manage your blood sugar.

But new technology is never without its hiccups. Those randomized to the bionic pancreas had a markedly higher rate of adverse events (244 events in 126 people compared with 10 events in 8 people in the usual-care group.)

This is actually a little misleading, though. The vast majority of these events were hyperglycemic episodes due to infusion set failures, which were reportable only in the bionic pancreas group. In other words, the patients in the control group who had an infusion set failure (assuming they were using an insulin pump at all) would have just called their regular doctor to get things sorted and not reported it to the study team.

Nevertheless, these adverse events – not serious, but common – highlight the fact that good software is not the only key to solving the closed-loop problem. We need good hardware too, hardware that can withstand the very active lives that children with type 1 diabetes deserve to live.

In short, the dream of a functional cure to type 1 diabetes, a true artificial pancreas, is closer than ever, but it’s still just a dream. With iterative advances like this, though, the reality may be here before you know it.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript of Impact Factor with F. Perry Wilson has been edited for clarity.

It was 100 years ago when Leonard Thompson, age 13, received a reprieve from a death sentence. Young master Thompson had type 1 diabetes, a disease that was uniformly fatal within months of diagnosis. But he received a new treatment, insulin, from a canine pancreas. He would live 13 more years before dying at age 26 of pneumonia.

The history of type 1 diabetes since that time has been a battle on two fronts: First, the search for a cause of and cure for the disease; second, the effort to make the administration of insulin safer, more reliable, and easier.

The past 2 decades have seen a technological revolution in type 1 diabetes care, with continuous glucose monitors decreasing the need for painful finger sticks, and insulin pumps allowing for more precise titration of doses.

The dream, of course, has been to combine those two technologies, continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps, to create so-called closed-loop systems – basically an artificial pancreas – that would obviate the need for any intervention on the part of the patient, save the occasional refilling of an insulin reservoir.

We aren’t there yet, but we are closer than ever.

Closed-loop systems for insulin delivery, like the Tandem Control IQ system, are a marvel of technology, but they are not exactly hands-free. Users need to dial in settings for their insulin usage, count carbohydrates at meals, and inform the system that they are about to eat those meals to allow the algorithm to administer an appropriate insulin dose.

The perceived complexity of these systems may be responsible for why there are substantial disparities in the prescription of closed-loop systems. Kids of lower socioeconomic status are dramatically less likely to receive these advanced technologies. Providers may feel that patients with lower health literacy or social supports are not “ideal” for these technologies, even though they lead to demonstrably better outcomes.

That means that easier might be better. And a “bionic pancreas,” as reported in an article from The New England Journal of Medicine, is exactly that.

Broadly, it’s another closed-loop system. The bionic pancreas integrates with a continuous glucose monitor and administers insulin when needed. But the algorithm appears to be a bit smarter than what we have in existing devices. For example, patients do not need to provide any information about their usual insulin doses – just their body weight. They don’t need to count carbohydrates at meals – just to inform the device when they are eating, and whether the meal is the usual amount they eat, more, or less. The algorithm learns and adapts as it is used. Easy.

And in this randomized trial, easy does it.

A total of 219 participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the bionic pancreas or usual diabetes care, though it was required that control participants use a continuous glucose monitor. Participants were as young as 6 years old and up to 79 years old; the majority were White and had a relatively high household income. The mean A1c was around 7.8% at baseline.

By the end of the study, the A1c was significantly improved in the bionic pancreas group, with a mean of 7.3% vs. 7.7% in the usual-care group.

This effect was most pronounced in those with a higher A1c at baseline.

People randomized to the bionic pancreas also spent more time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

All in all, the technology that makes it easy to manage your blood sugar, well, made it easy to manage your blood sugar.

But new technology is never without its hiccups. Those randomized to the bionic pancreas had a markedly higher rate of adverse events (244 events in 126 people compared with 10 events in 8 people in the usual-care group.)

This is actually a little misleading, though. The vast majority of these events were hyperglycemic episodes due to infusion set failures, which were reportable only in the bionic pancreas group. In other words, the patients in the control group who had an infusion set failure (assuming they were using an insulin pump at all) would have just called their regular doctor to get things sorted and not reported it to the study team.

Nevertheless, these adverse events – not serious, but common – highlight the fact that good software is not the only key to solving the closed-loop problem. We need good hardware too, hardware that can withstand the very active lives that children with type 1 diabetes deserve to live.

In short, the dream of a functional cure to type 1 diabetes, a true artificial pancreas, is closer than ever, but it’s still just a dream. With iterative advances like this, though, the reality may be here before you know it.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.