Commentary

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

When COVID-19 emerged in March 2020, physicians were forced to evaluate the potential impacts of the pandemic on our patients and the conditions that we treat. For dermatologists, psoriasis came into particular focus, as many patients were being treated with biologic therapies. The initial concern was that these biologics might render our patients more susceptible to both COVID-19 infection and/or a more severe disease course.

In early 2020, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) presented its own recommendations for treating patients with psoriatic disease during the pandemic.¹ Some highlights included the following¹:

• At the time, it was stipulated that patients with COVID-19 infection should stop taking a biologic.

• Psoriasis patients in high-risk groups (eg, concomitant systemic disease) should discuss with their dermatologist if their therapeutic regimen should be continued or altered.

• Patients taking oral immunosuppressive therapy may be at greater risk for COVID-19 infection, though there is no strong COVID-19–related evidence to provide specific guidelines or risk level.

In May 2020, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force was formed. This group—chaired by dermatologist Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and rheumatologist Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH (Rochester, New York)—was comprised of members from both the NPF Medical Board and Scientific Advisory Committee in dermatology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and critical care. The NPF COVID-19 Task Force has been critical in keeping the dermatology community apprised of the latest scientific thinking related to COVID-19 and publishing guidance statements that are updated and amended on a regular basis as new data becomes available.² Key recommendations most relevant to the daily care of patients with psoriatic disease included the following²:

• Patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis have similar rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes as the general population based on existing data, with some exceptions.

• Therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis do not meaningfully alter the risk for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection or having worse COVID-19 outcomes.

• Patients should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases, unless they become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

• Chronic systemic steroid use for psoriatic disease in the setting of acute infection with COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes; however, steroids may improve outcomes for COVID-19 when initiated in hospitalized patients who require oxygen therapy.

• When local restrictions or pandemic conditions limit the ability for in-person visits, offer telemedicine to manage patients.

• Patients with psoriatic disease who do not have contraindications to vaccination should receive a messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccine and boosters, based on federal, state, and local guidance. Systemic medications for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis are not a contraindication to the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. 

• Patients who are to receive an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine should continue their biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis in most cases.

• The use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and ivermectin is not suggested for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 disease.

These guidelines have been critical in addressing some of the most pressing issues in psoriasis patient care, particularly the susceptibility to COVID-19, the role of psoriasis therapies in initial infection and health outcomes, and issues related to the administration of vaccines in those on systemic therapies. Based on these recommendations, we have been given a solid foundation that our current standard of care can (for the most part) continue with the continued presence of COVID-19 in our society. I encourage all providers to familiarize themselves with the NPF COVID-19 Task Force guidelines and keep abreast of updates as they become available (https://www.psoriasis.org/covid-19-task-force-guidance-statements/).

It is time to reconsider the recommendation for practicing fetal kick counts. A meta-analysis demonstrated no decrease in the outcome of stillbirth, but instead an increased risk of iatrogenic delivery.¹

CASE 1 8 vs 10 fetal movements in 2 hours

Ms. M is 38 weeks pregnant with an uncomplicated pregnancy. She calls your practice with concerns about fetal kick counts. During her prenatal care, she was counseled to ensure that the baby moved 10 times over a period of 2 hours. This morning, however, she only perceived 8 movements in 2 hours. She is scheduled for evaluation with a nonstress test (NST) on the labor and delivery unit. The NST reveals a reassuring, reactive tracing. Ultrasonography evaluation demonstrates a normal amniotic fluid index and normal fetal growth. The patient is reassured, returns home, and goes on to deliver a healthy baby at 39 weeks and 5 days.

Perception of decreased movement triggers evaluation and monitoring

Maternal perception of normal fetal movement has conceivably been used throughout history as a means of reassurance of fetal well-being; it is highly predictive of fetal viability.^2,3 When fetal movement is lacking or decreased, it can be an alarm sign and may result in concerns by the mother that her baby is unwell. Maternal perception of decreased fetal movements affects 5% to 15% of all pregnancies.^2,4 While decreased fetal movement can be associated with poor perinatal outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and neuro-developmental disability, it also can be reflective of more benign issues such as anterior placenta, maternal activity, maternal caffeine or sugar consumption, or maternal position.^4,5

However, the definition of decreased fetal movement is subject to significant variation, from a total absence of movement over an entire day or what has commonly become accepted as the definition of fetal kick counts with Pearson’s Cardiff chart (which was defined in the 1970s as 10 movements within 12 hours).^6,7 Today, women in the United States are commonly recommended to monitor their baby over a 2-hour period and to look for 10 movements during that time.⁸ Anything less is considered reduced fetal movement and results in recommendations to undergo assessment of previously known high-risk conditions or any possible underlying conditions, such as hypertension, gestational diabetes, or fetal growth restriction. Further evaluation with more objective measures such as electronic fetal monitoring or ultrasonography with biophysical profile are often recommended concurrently.⁹

It is estimated that up to 15% of women present reporting decreased fetal movement in the third trimester and, as such, require additional monitoring and evaluation. This is not without cost of time and money to the health care system and pregnant patients.

It is uncertain that fetal kick counting prevents stillbirth

Intrauterine fetal demise is neither an uncommon nor completely preventable outcome, despite advances in antenatal care. Many cases occur without evidence of fetal abnormality or other risk factors, and 30% to 55% of women who experience intrauterine fetal demise experience decreased fetal movement in the preceding week.¹⁰ It makes physiologic sense that a fetus’ adaptive response to decreased oxygenation is reduced fetal movement, resulting from the prioritization of blood to the fetal brain and other organs over skeletal muscle.^4,9,11 Results of a 1976 small study of 61 low-risk pregnancies seemed to confirm that a decrease in fetal movement preceded intrauterine death by 3 to 4 days. Conversely, they found that a normal fetal movement count was generally associated with a good neonatal outcome.⁶ Thus, experts have long extrapolated that decreased fetal movement can be an indicator for utero-placental insufficiency and, in turn, chronic or acute hypoxia.

However, in larger studies, the ability of fetal movement counting to predict fetal death and fetal compromise appears limited.^8,10,11 A meta-analysis of studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 468,000 fetuses, compared the incidence of stillbirth in women receiving instructions for fetal movement counting versus women who did not. Rates of stillbirth were the same for each group, demonstrating no advantage to fetal kick counts to prevent a poor perinatal outcome, including stillbirth.¹

CASE 2 Reported reduced fetal movement over 4 weeks

Ms. E is a 20-year-old nullipara at 36 weeks’ and 6 days gestation who has come in to triage weekly for the last 4 weeks with concerns about decreased fetal movement. She states that she goes for several hours each day without feeling 10 movements in 2 hours. Recent fetal growth recorded 3 weeks ago was in the 45th percentile, and the amniotic fluid index has been above 10 cm on each weekly ultrasound. Her weekly NSTs have been reactive, and she has been normotensive. However, because she has had several weeks of persistent decreased fetal movement, the labor and delivery team opts to keep her for induction as she is “close to term.”

Decreased kick count frequency may increase unnecessary interventions

Women with fewer kick counts are more likely to present with concerns about the well-being of their baby. In a survey of obstetricians and midwives, a large proportion of providers were more apt to recommend delivery or admission to the hospital for women presenting with decreased fetal movements.² It stands to reason that recommendations for delivery or admission can lead to outcomes like preterm delivery or recommendations for cesarean delivery (CD). However, using fetal kick counts to portend stillbirth or other poor fetal and neonatal outcomes has been shown to be limited in its value with the AFFIRM trial.¹⁰ The results of this large study, which included more than 400,000 pregnancies from 37 hospitals, show the challenges of any study to address the use of management strategies for recent change in the frequency of fetal movements in the reduction of and cause of stillbirth. Additionally, the relatively low risk of stillbirth overall (4.06 stillbirths per 1,000 livebirths during the intervention period and 4.40 per 1,000 livebirths during the control period) but higher incidence of other outcomes, such as prolonged (>48 hours) antepartum admission (6.7% in the intervention period and 6.2% in the control period), induction of labor (40.7% in the intervention period and 35.9% in the control period), and CD (28.4% and 25.5%, respectively) may result in increased harm for many women rather than the intended benefit of preventing stillbirth.^10,12

Mindfetalness may be a viable and valuable alternative to kick counts

Alternatives have been proposed as a measure of fetal movement without using kick counts specifically. Mindfetalness has been a method studied in Sweden; its purpose is to strengthen the mother’s awareness of her baby through developing an understanding of the fetal-movement pattern. It is practiced starting at 28 weeks’ gestation for 15 minutes a day, with the woman instructed to lie on her left side and discern the intensity and character of the movements, as well as frequency, without overtly counting the movements.¹² In one small study, women felt more connected to their babies and felt less worried.¹² In a much larger study of 13,000 women, the authors found no evidence of harm from generalized awareness of fetal movements in a population of pregnant women at or beyond 32 weeks; in fact, they did see significant reductions in iatrogenic outcomes such as CDs and labor inductions.¹³

The case for movement awareness over kick counts

Stillbirth risk does not appear to be modified by the use of methods to detect fetal movement.^10,12 However, a perceived decrease in fetal kick counts has been shown to result in increased interventions and preterm deliveries. A more prudent approach appears to be educating mothers about general fetal movement, which appears to reduce potentially unnecessary visits and interventions without sacrificing the ability to reassure mothers about the well-being of their babies in utero. ●

It is time to reconsider the recommendation for practicing fetal kick counts. A meta-analysis demonstrated no decrease in the outcome of stillbirth, but instead an increased risk of iatrogenic delivery.¹

CASE 1 8 vs 10 fetal movements in 2 hours

Ms. M is 38 weeks pregnant with an uncomplicated pregnancy. She calls your practice with concerns about fetal kick counts. During her prenatal care, she was counseled to ensure that the baby moved 10 times over a period of 2 hours. This morning, however, she only perceived 8 movements in 2 hours. She is scheduled for evaluation with a nonstress test (NST) on the labor and delivery unit. The NST reveals a reassuring, reactive tracing. Ultrasonography evaluation demonstrates a normal amniotic fluid index and normal fetal growth. The patient is reassured, returns home, and goes on to deliver a healthy baby at 39 weeks and 5 days.

Perception of decreased movement triggers evaluation and monitoring

Maternal perception of normal fetal movement has conceivably been used throughout history as a means of reassurance of fetal well-being; it is highly predictive of fetal viability.^2,3 When fetal movement is lacking or decreased, it can be an alarm sign and may result in concerns by the mother that her baby is unwell. Maternal perception of decreased fetal movements affects 5% to 15% of all pregnancies.^2,4 While decreased fetal movement can be associated with poor perinatal outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and neuro-developmental disability, it also can be reflective of more benign issues such as anterior placenta, maternal activity, maternal caffeine or sugar consumption, or maternal position.^4,5

However, the definition of decreased fetal movement is subject to significant variation, from a total absence of movement over an entire day or what has commonly become accepted as the definition of fetal kick counts with Pearson’s Cardiff chart (which was defined in the 1970s as 10 movements within 12 hours).^6,7 Today, women in the United States are commonly recommended to monitor their baby over a 2-hour period and to look for 10 movements during that time.⁸ Anything less is considered reduced fetal movement and results in recommendations to undergo assessment of previously known high-risk conditions or any possible underlying conditions, such as hypertension, gestational diabetes, or fetal growth restriction. Further evaluation with more objective measures such as electronic fetal monitoring or ultrasonography with biophysical profile are often recommended concurrently.⁹

It is estimated that up to 15% of women present reporting decreased fetal movement in the third trimester and, as such, require additional monitoring and evaluation. This is not without cost of time and money to the health care system and pregnant patients.

It is uncertain that fetal kick counting prevents stillbirth

Intrauterine fetal demise is neither an uncommon nor completely preventable outcome, despite advances in antenatal care. Many cases occur without evidence of fetal abnormality or other risk factors, and 30% to 55% of women who experience intrauterine fetal demise experience decreased fetal movement in the preceding week.¹⁰ It makes physiologic sense that a fetus’ adaptive response to decreased oxygenation is reduced fetal movement, resulting from the prioritization of blood to the fetal brain and other organs over skeletal muscle.^4,9,11 Results of a 1976 small study of 61 low-risk pregnancies seemed to confirm that a decrease in fetal movement preceded intrauterine death by 3 to 4 days. Conversely, they found that a normal fetal movement count was generally associated with a good neonatal outcome.⁶ Thus, experts have long extrapolated that decreased fetal movement can be an indicator for utero-placental insufficiency and, in turn, chronic or acute hypoxia.

However, in larger studies, the ability of fetal movement counting to predict fetal death and fetal compromise appears limited.^8,10,11 A meta-analysis of studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 468,000 fetuses, compared the incidence of stillbirth in women receiving instructions for fetal movement counting versus women who did not. Rates of stillbirth were the same for each group, demonstrating no advantage to fetal kick counts to prevent a poor perinatal outcome, including stillbirth.¹

CASE 2 Reported reduced fetal movement over 4 weeks

Ms. E is a 20-year-old nullipara at 36 weeks’ and 6 days gestation who has come in to triage weekly for the last 4 weeks with concerns about decreased fetal movement. She states that she goes for several hours each day without feeling 10 movements in 2 hours. Recent fetal growth recorded 3 weeks ago was in the 45th percentile, and the amniotic fluid index has been above 10 cm on each weekly ultrasound. Her weekly NSTs have been reactive, and she has been normotensive. However, because she has had several weeks of persistent decreased fetal movement, the labor and delivery team opts to keep her for induction as she is “close to term.”

Decreased kick count frequency may increase unnecessary interventions

Women with fewer kick counts are more likely to present with concerns about the well-being of their baby. In a survey of obstetricians and midwives, a large proportion of providers were more apt to recommend delivery or admission to the hospital for women presenting with decreased fetal movements.² It stands to reason that recommendations for delivery or admission can lead to outcomes like preterm delivery or recommendations for cesarean delivery (CD). However, using fetal kick counts to portend stillbirth or other poor fetal and neonatal outcomes has been shown to be limited in its value with the AFFIRM trial.¹⁰ The results of this large study, which included more than 400,000 pregnancies from 37 hospitals, show the challenges of any study to address the use of management strategies for recent change in the frequency of fetal movements in the reduction of and cause of stillbirth. Additionally, the relatively low risk of stillbirth overall (4.06 stillbirths per 1,000 livebirths during the intervention period and 4.40 per 1,000 livebirths during the control period) but higher incidence of other outcomes, such as prolonged (>48 hours) antepartum admission (6.7% in the intervention period and 6.2% in the control period), induction of labor (40.7% in the intervention period and 35.9% in the control period), and CD (28.4% and 25.5%, respectively) may result in increased harm for many women rather than the intended benefit of preventing stillbirth.^10,12

Mindfetalness may be a viable and valuable alternative to kick counts

Alternatives have been proposed as a measure of fetal movement without using kick counts specifically. Mindfetalness has been a method studied in Sweden; its purpose is to strengthen the mother’s awareness of her baby through developing an understanding of the fetal-movement pattern. It is practiced starting at 28 weeks’ gestation for 15 minutes a day, with the woman instructed to lie on her left side and discern the intensity and character of the movements, as well as frequency, without overtly counting the movements.¹² In one small study, women felt more connected to their babies and felt less worried.¹² In a much larger study of 13,000 women, the authors found no evidence of harm from generalized awareness of fetal movements in a population of pregnant women at or beyond 32 weeks; in fact, they did see significant reductions in iatrogenic outcomes such as CDs and labor inductions.¹³

The case for movement awareness over kick counts

Stillbirth risk does not appear to be modified by the use of methods to detect fetal movement.^10,12 However, a perceived decrease in fetal kick counts has been shown to result in increased interventions and preterm deliveries. A more prudent approach appears to be educating mothers about general fetal movement, which appears to reduce potentially unnecessary visits and interventions without sacrificing the ability to reassure mothers about the well-being of their babies in utero. ●

It is time to reconsider the recommendation for practicing fetal kick counts. A meta-analysis demonstrated no decrease in the outcome of stillbirth, but instead an increased risk of iatrogenic delivery.¹

CASE 1 8 vs 10 fetal movements in 2 hours

Ms. M is 38 weeks pregnant with an uncomplicated pregnancy. She calls your practice with concerns about fetal kick counts. During her prenatal care, she was counseled to ensure that the baby moved 10 times over a period of 2 hours. This morning, however, she only perceived 8 movements in 2 hours. She is scheduled for evaluation with a nonstress test (NST) on the labor and delivery unit. The NST reveals a reassuring, reactive tracing. Ultrasonography evaluation demonstrates a normal amniotic fluid index and normal fetal growth. The patient is reassured, returns home, and goes on to deliver a healthy baby at 39 weeks and 5 days.

Perception of decreased movement triggers evaluation and monitoring

Maternal perception of normal fetal movement has conceivably been used throughout history as a means of reassurance of fetal well-being; it is highly predictive of fetal viability.^2,3 When fetal movement is lacking or decreased, it can be an alarm sign and may result in concerns by the mother that her baby is unwell. Maternal perception of decreased fetal movements affects 5% to 15% of all pregnancies.^2,4 While decreased fetal movement can be associated with poor perinatal outcomes such as fetal growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and neuro-developmental disability, it also can be reflective of more benign issues such as anterior placenta, maternal activity, maternal caffeine or sugar consumption, or maternal position.^4,5

However, the definition of decreased fetal movement is subject to significant variation, from a total absence of movement over an entire day or what has commonly become accepted as the definition of fetal kick counts with Pearson’s Cardiff chart (which was defined in the 1970s as 10 movements within 12 hours).^6,7 Today, women in the United States are commonly recommended to monitor their baby over a 2-hour period and to look for 10 movements during that time.⁸ Anything less is considered reduced fetal movement and results in recommendations to undergo assessment of previously known high-risk conditions or any possible underlying conditions, such as hypertension, gestational diabetes, or fetal growth restriction. Further evaluation with more objective measures such as electronic fetal monitoring or ultrasonography with biophysical profile are often recommended concurrently.⁹

It is estimated that up to 15% of women present reporting decreased fetal movement in the third trimester and, as such, require additional monitoring and evaluation. This is not without cost of time and money to the health care system and pregnant patients.

It is uncertain that fetal kick counting prevents stillbirth

Intrauterine fetal demise is neither an uncommon nor completely preventable outcome, despite advances in antenatal care. Many cases occur without evidence of fetal abnormality or other risk factors, and 30% to 55% of women who experience intrauterine fetal demise experience decreased fetal movement in the preceding week.¹⁰ It makes physiologic sense that a fetus’ adaptive response to decreased oxygenation is reduced fetal movement, resulting from the prioritization of blood to the fetal brain and other organs over skeletal muscle.^4,9,11 Results of a 1976 small study of 61 low-risk pregnancies seemed to confirm that a decrease in fetal movement preceded intrauterine death by 3 to 4 days. Conversely, they found that a normal fetal movement count was generally associated with a good neonatal outcome.⁶ Thus, experts have long extrapolated that decreased fetal movement can be an indicator for utero-placental insufficiency and, in turn, chronic or acute hypoxia.

However, in larger studies, the ability of fetal movement counting to predict fetal death and fetal compromise appears limited.^8,10,11 A meta-analysis of studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 468,000 fetuses, compared the incidence of stillbirth in women receiving instructions for fetal movement counting versus women who did not. Rates of stillbirth were the same for each group, demonstrating no advantage to fetal kick counts to prevent a poor perinatal outcome, including stillbirth.¹

CASE 2 Reported reduced fetal movement over 4 weeks

Ms. E is a 20-year-old nullipara at 36 weeks’ and 6 days gestation who has come in to triage weekly for the last 4 weeks with concerns about decreased fetal movement. She states that she goes for several hours each day without feeling 10 movements in 2 hours. Recent fetal growth recorded 3 weeks ago was in the 45th percentile, and the amniotic fluid index has been above 10 cm on each weekly ultrasound. Her weekly NSTs have been reactive, and she has been normotensive. However, because she has had several weeks of persistent decreased fetal movement, the labor and delivery team opts to keep her for induction as she is “close to term.”

Decreased kick count frequency may increase unnecessary interventions

Women with fewer kick counts are more likely to present with concerns about the well-being of their baby. In a survey of obstetricians and midwives, a large proportion of providers were more apt to recommend delivery or admission to the hospital for women presenting with decreased fetal movements.² It stands to reason that recommendations for delivery or admission can lead to outcomes like preterm delivery or recommendations for cesarean delivery (CD). However, using fetal kick counts to portend stillbirth or other poor fetal and neonatal outcomes has been shown to be limited in its value with the AFFIRM trial.¹⁰ The results of this large study, which included more than 400,000 pregnancies from 37 hospitals, show the challenges of any study to address the use of management strategies for recent change in the frequency of fetal movements in the reduction of and cause of stillbirth. Additionally, the relatively low risk of stillbirth overall (4.06 stillbirths per 1,000 livebirths during the intervention period and 4.40 per 1,000 livebirths during the control period) but higher incidence of other outcomes, such as prolonged (>48 hours) antepartum admission (6.7% in the intervention period and 6.2% in the control period), induction of labor (40.7% in the intervention period and 35.9% in the control period), and CD (28.4% and 25.5%, respectively) may result in increased harm for many women rather than the intended benefit of preventing stillbirth.^10,12

Mindfetalness may be a viable and valuable alternative to kick counts

Alternatives have been proposed as a measure of fetal movement without using kick counts specifically. Mindfetalness has been a method studied in Sweden; its purpose is to strengthen the mother’s awareness of her baby through developing an understanding of the fetal-movement pattern. It is practiced starting at 28 weeks’ gestation for 15 minutes a day, with the woman instructed to lie on her left side and discern the intensity and character of the movements, as well as frequency, without overtly counting the movements.¹² In one small study, women felt more connected to their babies and felt less worried.¹² In a much larger study of 13,000 women, the authors found no evidence of harm from generalized awareness of fetal movements in a population of pregnant women at or beyond 32 weeks; in fact, they did see significant reductions in iatrogenic outcomes such as CDs and labor inductions.¹³

The case for movement awareness over kick counts

Stillbirth risk does not appear to be modified by the use of methods to detect fetal movement.^10,12 However, a perceived decrease in fetal kick counts has been shown to result in increased interventions and preterm deliveries. A more prudent approach appears to be educating mothers about general fetal movement, which appears to reduce potentially unnecessary visits and interventions without sacrificing the ability to reassure mothers about the well-being of their babies in utero. ●

The impacts of anthropogenic climate change on human health are numerous and growing. The evidence that climate change is occurring due to the burning of fossil fuels is substantial, with a 2019 report elevating the data supporting anthropogenic climate change to a gold standard 5-sigma level of significance.¹ In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the consensus that humans are causing climate change is greater than 99%.² Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have acknowledged the health impacts of climate change and importance for action. They encourage physicians to engage in environmentally sustainable practices and to advocate for effective climate change mitigation strategies.^3,4 A survey of dermatologists also found that 99.3% (n=148) recognize climate change is occurring, and similarly high numbers are concerned about its health impacts.⁵

Notably, the health care industry must grapple not only with the health impacts of climate change but with the fact that the health care sector itself is responsible for a large amount of carbon emissions.⁶ The global health care industry as a whole produces enough carbon emissions to be ranked as the fifth largest emitting nation in the world.⁷ A quarter of these emissions are attributed to the US health care system.^8,9 Climate science has shown we must limit CO₂ emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, with the sixth assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement targeting large emission reductions within the next decade.¹⁰ In August 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services created the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Rachel L. Levine, MD, has committed to reducing the carbon emissions from the health care sector by 25% in the next decade, in line with scientific consensus regarding necessary changes.¹¹

The dermatologic impacts of climate change are myriad. Rising temperatures, increasing air and water pollution, and stratospheric ozone depletion will lead to expanded geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases, worsening of chronic skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis/eczema and pemphigus, and increasing rates of skin cancer.¹² For instance, warmer temperatures have allowed mosquitoes of the Aedes genus to infest new areas, leading to outbreaks of viral illnesses with cutaneous manifestations such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus in previously nonindigenous regions.¹³ Rising temperatures also have been associated with an expanding geographic range of tick- and sandfly-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and cutaneous leishmaniasis.^13,14 Additionally, short-term exposure to air pollution from wildfire smoke has been associated with an increased use of health care services by patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁵ Increased levels of air pollutants also have been found to be associated with psoriasis flares as well as hyperpigmentation and wrinkle formation.^16,17 Skin cancer incidence is predicted to rise due to increased UV radiation exposure secondary to stratospheric ozone depletion.¹⁸

Although the effects of climate change are significant and the magnitude of the climate crisis may feel overwhelming, it is essential to avoid doomerism and focus on meaningful impactful actions. Current CO₂ emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, and the choices we make now commit future generations to live in a world shaped by our decisions. Importantly, there are impactful and low-cost, cost-effective, or cost-saving changes that can be made to mitigate the climate crisis. Herein, we provide 10 practical actionable interventions for dermatologists to help combat climate change.

10 Interventions for Dermatologists to Combat Climate Change

1. Consider switching to renewable sources of energy. Making this switch often is the most impactful decision a dermatologist can make to address climate change. The electricity sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US health care system, and dermatology outpatient practices in particular have been observed to have a higher peak energy consumption than most other specialties studied.^19,20 Many dermatology practices—both privately owned and academic—can switch to renewable energy seamlessly through power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are contracts between power providers and private entities to install renewable energy equipment or source renewable energy from offsite sources at a fixed rate. Using PPAs instead of traditional fossil fuel energy can provide cost savings as well as protect buyers from electrical price volatility. Numerous health care systems utilize PPAs such as Kaiser Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, and Rochester Regional Health. Additionally, dermatologists can directly purchase renewable energy equipment and eventually receive a return on investment from substantially lowered electric bills. It is important to note that the cost of commercial solar energy systems has decreased 69% since 2010 with further cost reductions predicted.^21,22

2. Reduce standby power consumption. This refers to the use of electricity by a device when it appears to be off or is not in use, which can lead to considerable energy consumption and subsequently a larger carbon footprint for your practice. Ensuring electronics such as phone chargers, light fixtures, television screens, and computers are switched off prior to the end of the workday can make a large difference; for instance, a single radiology department at the University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland) found that if clinical workstations were shut down when not in use after an 8-hour workday, it would save 83,866 kWh of energy and $9225.33 per year.²³ Additionally, using power strips with an automatic shutoff feature to shut off power to devices not in use provides a more convenient way to reduce standby power.

3. Optimize thermostat settings. An analysis of energy consumption in 157,000 US health care facilities found that space heating and cooling accounted for 40% of their total energy consumption.²⁴ Thus, ensuring your thermostat and heating/cooling systems are working efficiently can conserve a substantial amount of energy. For maximum efficiency, it is recommended to set air conditioners to 74 °F (24 °C) and heaters to 68 °F (20 °C) or employ smart thermostats to optimally adjust temperatures when the office is not in use.²⁵ In addition, routinely replacing or cleaning air conditioner filters can lower energy consumption by 5% to 15%.²⁶ Similarly, improving insulation and ruggedization of both homes and offices may reduce heating and cooling waste and limit costs and emissions as a result.

4. Offer bicycle racks and charging ports for electric vehicles. In the United States, transportation generates more greenhouse gas emissions than any other source, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels to power automobiles, trains, and planes. Because bicycles do not consume any fossil fuels and the use of electric vehicles has been found to result in substantial air pollution health benefits, encouraging the use of both can make a considerable positive impact on our climate.²⁷ Providing these resources not only allows those who already travel sustainably to continue to do so but also serves as a reminder to your patients that sustainability is important to you as their health care provider. As electric vehicle sales continue to climb, infrastructure to support their use, including charging stations, will grow in importance. A physician’s office that offers a car-charging station may soon have a competitive advantage over others in the area.

5. Ensure properly regulated medical waste management. Regulated medical waste (also known as infectious medical waste or red bag waste) refers to health care–generated waste unsuitable for disposal in municipal solid waste systems due to concern for the spread of infectious or pathogenic materials. This waste largely is disposed via incineration, which harms the environment in a multitude of ways—both through harmful byproducts and from the CO₂ emissions required to ship the waste to special processing facilities.²⁸ Incineration of regulated medical waste emits potent toxins such as dioxins and furans as well as particulate matter, which contribute to air pollution. Ensuring only materials with infectious potential (as defined by each state’s Environmental Protection Agency) are disposed in regulated medical waste containers can dramatically reduce the harmful effects of incineration. Additionally, limiting regulated medical waste can be very cost-effective, as its disposal is 5- to 10-times more expensive than that of unregulated medical waste.²⁹ Simple nudge measures such as educating staff about what waste goes in which receptacle, placing signage over the red bag waste to prompt staff to pause to consider if use of that bin is required before utilizing, using weights or clasps to make opening red bag waste containers slightly harder, and positioning different trash receptacles in different parts of examination rooms may help reduce inappropriate use of red bag waste.

6. Consider virtual platforms when possible. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meeting platforms saw a considerable increase in usage by dermatologists. Teledermatology for patient care became much more widely adopted, and traditionally in-person meetings turned virtual.³⁰ The reduction in emissions from these changes was remarkable. A recent study looking at the environmental impact of 3 months of teledermatology visits early during the COVID-19 pandemic found that 1476 teledermatology appointments saved 55,737 miles of car travel, equivalent to 15.37 metric tons of CO₂.³¹ Whether for patient care when appropriate, academic conferences and continuing medical education credit, or for interviews (eg, medical students, residents, other staff), use of virtual platforms can reduce unnecessary travel and therefore substantially reduce travel-related emissions. When travel is unavoidable, consider exploring validated vetted companies that offer carbon offsets to reduce the harmful environmental impact of high-emission flights.

7. Limit use of single-use disposable items. Although single-use items such as examination gloves or needles are necessary in a dermatology practice, there are many opportunities to incorporate reusable items in your workplace. For instance, you can replace plastic cutlery and single-use plates in kitchen or dining areas with reusable alternatives. Additionally, using reusable isolation gowns instead of their single-use counterparts can help reduce waste; a reusable isolation gown system for providers including laundering services was found to consume 28% less energy and emit 30% fewer greenhouse gases than a single-use isolation gown system.³² Similarly, opting for reusable instruments instead of single-use instruments when possible also can help reduce your practice’s carbon footprint. Carefully evaluating each part of your “dermatology visit supply chain” may offer opportunities to utilize additional cost-saving, environmentally friendly options; for example, an individually plastic-wrapped Dermablade vs a bulk-packaged blade for shave biopsies has a higher cost and worse environmental impact. A single gauze often is sufficient for shave biopsies, but many practices open a plastic container of bulk gauze, much of which results in waste that too often is inappropriately disposed of as regulated medical waste despite not being saturated in blood/body fluids.

8. Educate on the effects of climate change. Dermatologists and other physicians have the unique opportunity to teach members of their community every day through patient care. Physicians are trusted messengers, and appropriately counseling patients regarding the risks of climate change and its effects on their dermatologic health is in line with both American Medical Association and American College of Physicians guidelines.^3,4 For instance, patients with Lyme disease in Canada or Maine were unheard of a few decades ago, but now they are common; flares of atopic dermatitis in regions adjacent to recent wildfires may be attributable to harmful particulate matter resulting from fossil-fueled climate change and record droughts. Educating medical trainees on the impacts of climate change is just as vital, as it is a topic that often is neglected in medical school and residency curricula.³³

9. Install water-efficient toilets and faucets. Anthropogenic climate change has been shown to increase the duration and intensity of droughts throughout the world.³⁴ Much of the western United States also is experiencing record droughts. One way in which dermatology practices can work to combat droughts is through the use of water-conserving toilets, faucets, and urinals. Using water fixtures with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense label is a convenient way to do so. The WaterSense label helps identify water fixtures certified to use at least 20% less water as well as save energy and decrease water costs.

10. Advocate through local and national organizations. There are numerous ways in which dermatologists can advocate for action against climate change. Joining professional organizations focused on addressing the climate crisis can help you connect with fellow dermatologists and physicians. The Expert Resource Group on Climate Change and Environmental Issues affiliated with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) is one such organization with many opportunities to raise awareness within the field of dermatology. The AAD recently joined the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, an organization providing opportunities for policy and media outreach as well as research on climate change. Advocacy also can mean joining your local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility or encouraging divestment from fossil fuel companies within your institution. Voicing support for climate change–focused lectures at events such as grand rounds and society meetings at the local, regional, and state-wide levels can help raise awareness. As the dermatologic effects of climate change grow, being knowledgeable of the views of future leaders in our specialty and country on this issue will become increasingly important.

Final Thoughts

In addition to the climate-friendly decisions one can make as a dermatologist, there are many personal lifestyle choices to consider. Small dietary changes such as limiting consumption of beef and minimizing food waste can have large downstream effects. Opting for transportation via train and limiting air travel are both impactful decisions in reducing CO₂ emissions. Similarly, switching to an electric vehicle or vehicle with minimal emissions can work to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation. For additional resources, note the AAD has partnered with My Green Doctor, a nonprofit service for health care practices that includes practical cost-saving suggestions to support sustainability in physician practices.

A recent joint publication in more than 200 medical journals described climate change as the greatest threat to global public health.³⁵ Climate change is having devastating effects on dermatologic health and will only continue to do so if not addressed now. Dermatologists have the opportunity to join with our colleagues in the house of medicine and to take action to fight climate change and mitigate the health impacts on our patients, the population, and future generations.

The impacts of anthropogenic climate change on human health are numerous and growing. The evidence that climate change is occurring due to the burning of fossil fuels is substantial, with a 2019 report elevating the data supporting anthropogenic climate change to a gold standard 5-sigma level of significance.¹ In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the consensus that humans are causing climate change is greater than 99%.² Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have acknowledged the health impacts of climate change and importance for action. They encourage physicians to engage in environmentally sustainable practices and to advocate for effective climate change mitigation strategies.^3,4 A survey of dermatologists also found that 99.3% (n=148) recognize climate change is occurring, and similarly high numbers are concerned about its health impacts.⁵

Notably, the health care industry must grapple not only with the health impacts of climate change but with the fact that the health care sector itself is responsible for a large amount of carbon emissions.⁶ The global health care industry as a whole produces enough carbon emissions to be ranked as the fifth largest emitting nation in the world.⁷ A quarter of these emissions are attributed to the US health care system.^8,9 Climate science has shown we must limit CO₂ emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, with the sixth assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement targeting large emission reductions within the next decade.¹⁰ In August 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services created the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Rachel L. Levine, MD, has committed to reducing the carbon emissions from the health care sector by 25% in the next decade, in line with scientific consensus regarding necessary changes.¹¹

The dermatologic impacts of climate change are myriad. Rising temperatures, increasing air and water pollution, and stratospheric ozone depletion will lead to expanded geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases, worsening of chronic skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis/eczema and pemphigus, and increasing rates of skin cancer.¹² For instance, warmer temperatures have allowed mosquitoes of the Aedes genus to infest new areas, leading to outbreaks of viral illnesses with cutaneous manifestations such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus in previously nonindigenous regions.¹³ Rising temperatures also have been associated with an expanding geographic range of tick- and sandfly-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and cutaneous leishmaniasis.^13,14 Additionally, short-term exposure to air pollution from wildfire smoke has been associated with an increased use of health care services by patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁵ Increased levels of air pollutants also have been found to be associated with psoriasis flares as well as hyperpigmentation and wrinkle formation.^16,17 Skin cancer incidence is predicted to rise due to increased UV radiation exposure secondary to stratospheric ozone depletion.¹⁸

Although the effects of climate change are significant and the magnitude of the climate crisis may feel overwhelming, it is essential to avoid doomerism and focus on meaningful impactful actions. Current CO₂ emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, and the choices we make now commit future generations to live in a world shaped by our decisions. Importantly, there are impactful and low-cost, cost-effective, or cost-saving changes that can be made to mitigate the climate crisis. Herein, we provide 10 practical actionable interventions for dermatologists to help combat climate change.

10 Interventions for Dermatologists to Combat Climate Change

1. Consider switching to renewable sources of energy. Making this switch often is the most impactful decision a dermatologist can make to address climate change. The electricity sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US health care system, and dermatology outpatient practices in particular have been observed to have a higher peak energy consumption than most other specialties studied.^19,20 Many dermatology practices—both privately owned and academic—can switch to renewable energy seamlessly through power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are contracts between power providers and private entities to install renewable energy equipment or source renewable energy from offsite sources at a fixed rate. Using PPAs instead of traditional fossil fuel energy can provide cost savings as well as protect buyers from electrical price volatility. Numerous health care systems utilize PPAs such as Kaiser Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, and Rochester Regional Health. Additionally, dermatologists can directly purchase renewable energy equipment and eventually receive a return on investment from substantially lowered electric bills. It is important to note that the cost of commercial solar energy systems has decreased 69% since 2010 with further cost reductions predicted.^21,22

2. Reduce standby power consumption. This refers to the use of electricity by a device when it appears to be off or is not in use, which can lead to considerable energy consumption and subsequently a larger carbon footprint for your practice. Ensuring electronics such as phone chargers, light fixtures, television screens, and computers are switched off prior to the end of the workday can make a large difference; for instance, a single radiology department at the University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland) found that if clinical workstations were shut down when not in use after an 8-hour workday, it would save 83,866 kWh of energy and $9225.33 per year.²³ Additionally, using power strips with an automatic shutoff feature to shut off power to devices not in use provides a more convenient way to reduce standby power.

3. Optimize thermostat settings. An analysis of energy consumption in 157,000 US health care facilities found that space heating and cooling accounted for 40% of their total energy consumption.²⁴ Thus, ensuring your thermostat and heating/cooling systems are working efficiently can conserve a substantial amount of energy. For maximum efficiency, it is recommended to set air conditioners to 74 °F (24 °C) and heaters to 68 °F (20 °C) or employ smart thermostats to optimally adjust temperatures when the office is not in use.²⁵ In addition, routinely replacing or cleaning air conditioner filters can lower energy consumption by 5% to 15%.²⁶ Similarly, improving insulation and ruggedization of both homes and offices may reduce heating and cooling waste and limit costs and emissions as a result.

4. Offer bicycle racks and charging ports for electric vehicles. In the United States, transportation generates more greenhouse gas emissions than any other source, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels to power automobiles, trains, and planes. Because bicycles do not consume any fossil fuels and the use of electric vehicles has been found to result in substantial air pollution health benefits, encouraging the use of both can make a considerable positive impact on our climate.²⁷ Providing these resources not only allows those who already travel sustainably to continue to do so but also serves as a reminder to your patients that sustainability is important to you as their health care provider. As electric vehicle sales continue to climb, infrastructure to support their use, including charging stations, will grow in importance. A physician’s office that offers a car-charging station may soon have a competitive advantage over others in the area.

5. Ensure properly regulated medical waste management. Regulated medical waste (also known as infectious medical waste or red bag waste) refers to health care–generated waste unsuitable for disposal in municipal solid waste systems due to concern for the spread of infectious or pathogenic materials. This waste largely is disposed via incineration, which harms the environment in a multitude of ways—both through harmful byproducts and from the CO₂ emissions required to ship the waste to special processing facilities.²⁸ Incineration of regulated medical waste emits potent toxins such as dioxins and furans as well as particulate matter, which contribute to air pollution. Ensuring only materials with infectious potential (as defined by each state’s Environmental Protection Agency) are disposed in regulated medical waste containers can dramatically reduce the harmful effects of incineration. Additionally, limiting regulated medical waste can be very cost-effective, as its disposal is 5- to 10-times more expensive than that of unregulated medical waste.²⁹ Simple nudge measures such as educating staff about what waste goes in which receptacle, placing signage over the red bag waste to prompt staff to pause to consider if use of that bin is required before utilizing, using weights or clasps to make opening red bag waste containers slightly harder, and positioning different trash receptacles in different parts of examination rooms may help reduce inappropriate use of red bag waste.

6. Consider virtual platforms when possible. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meeting platforms saw a considerable increase in usage by dermatologists. Teledermatology for patient care became much more widely adopted, and traditionally in-person meetings turned virtual.³⁰ The reduction in emissions from these changes was remarkable. A recent study looking at the environmental impact of 3 months of teledermatology visits early during the COVID-19 pandemic found that 1476 teledermatology appointments saved 55,737 miles of car travel, equivalent to 15.37 metric tons of CO₂.³¹ Whether for patient care when appropriate, academic conferences and continuing medical education credit, or for interviews (eg, medical students, residents, other staff), use of virtual platforms can reduce unnecessary travel and therefore substantially reduce travel-related emissions. When travel is unavoidable, consider exploring validated vetted companies that offer carbon offsets to reduce the harmful environmental impact of high-emission flights.

7. Limit use of single-use disposable items. Although single-use items such as examination gloves or needles are necessary in a dermatology practice, there are many opportunities to incorporate reusable items in your workplace. For instance, you can replace plastic cutlery and single-use plates in kitchen or dining areas with reusable alternatives. Additionally, using reusable isolation gowns instead of their single-use counterparts can help reduce waste; a reusable isolation gown system for providers including laundering services was found to consume 28% less energy and emit 30% fewer greenhouse gases than a single-use isolation gown system.³² Similarly, opting for reusable instruments instead of single-use instruments when possible also can help reduce your practice’s carbon footprint. Carefully evaluating each part of your “dermatology visit supply chain” may offer opportunities to utilize additional cost-saving, environmentally friendly options; for example, an individually plastic-wrapped Dermablade vs a bulk-packaged blade for shave biopsies has a higher cost and worse environmental impact. A single gauze often is sufficient for shave biopsies, but many practices open a plastic container of bulk gauze, much of which results in waste that too often is inappropriately disposed of as regulated medical waste despite not being saturated in blood/body fluids.

8. Educate on the effects of climate change. Dermatologists and other physicians have the unique opportunity to teach members of their community every day through patient care. Physicians are trusted messengers, and appropriately counseling patients regarding the risks of climate change and its effects on their dermatologic health is in line with both American Medical Association and American College of Physicians guidelines.^3,4 For instance, patients with Lyme disease in Canada or Maine were unheard of a few decades ago, but now they are common; flares of atopic dermatitis in regions adjacent to recent wildfires may be attributable to harmful particulate matter resulting from fossil-fueled climate change and record droughts. Educating medical trainees on the impacts of climate change is just as vital, as it is a topic that often is neglected in medical school and residency curricula.³³

9. Install water-efficient toilets and faucets. Anthropogenic climate change has been shown to increase the duration and intensity of droughts throughout the world.³⁴ Much of the western United States also is experiencing record droughts. One way in which dermatology practices can work to combat droughts is through the use of water-conserving toilets, faucets, and urinals. Using water fixtures with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense label is a convenient way to do so. The WaterSense label helps identify water fixtures certified to use at least 20% less water as well as save energy and decrease water costs.

10. Advocate through local and national organizations. There are numerous ways in which dermatologists can advocate for action against climate change. Joining professional organizations focused on addressing the climate crisis can help you connect with fellow dermatologists and physicians. The Expert Resource Group on Climate Change and Environmental Issues affiliated with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) is one such organization with many opportunities to raise awareness within the field of dermatology. The AAD recently joined the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, an organization providing opportunities for policy and media outreach as well as research on climate change. Advocacy also can mean joining your local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility or encouraging divestment from fossil fuel companies within your institution. Voicing support for climate change–focused lectures at events such as grand rounds and society meetings at the local, regional, and state-wide levels can help raise awareness. As the dermatologic effects of climate change grow, being knowledgeable of the views of future leaders in our specialty and country on this issue will become increasingly important.

Final Thoughts

In addition to the climate-friendly decisions one can make as a dermatologist, there are many personal lifestyle choices to consider. Small dietary changes such as limiting consumption of beef and minimizing food waste can have large downstream effects. Opting for transportation via train and limiting air travel are both impactful decisions in reducing CO₂ emissions. Similarly, switching to an electric vehicle or vehicle with minimal emissions can work to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation. For additional resources, note the AAD has partnered with My Green Doctor, a nonprofit service for health care practices that includes practical cost-saving suggestions to support sustainability in physician practices.

A recent joint publication in more than 200 medical journals described climate change as the greatest threat to global public health.³⁵ Climate change is having devastating effects on dermatologic health and will only continue to do so if not addressed now. Dermatologists have the opportunity to join with our colleagues in the house of medicine and to take action to fight climate change and mitigate the health impacts on our patients, the population, and future generations.

The impacts of anthropogenic climate change on human health are numerous and growing. The evidence that climate change is occurring due to the burning of fossil fuels is substantial, with a 2019 report elevating the data supporting anthropogenic climate change to a gold standard 5-sigma level of significance.¹ In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the consensus that humans are causing climate change is greater than 99%.² Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have acknowledged the health impacts of climate change and importance for action. They encourage physicians to engage in environmentally sustainable practices and to advocate for effective climate change mitigation strategies.^3,4 A survey of dermatologists also found that 99.3% (n=148) recognize climate change is occurring, and similarly high numbers are concerned about its health impacts.⁵

Notably, the health care industry must grapple not only with the health impacts of climate change but with the fact that the health care sector itself is responsible for a large amount of carbon emissions.⁶ The global health care industry as a whole produces enough carbon emissions to be ranked as the fifth largest emitting nation in the world.⁷ A quarter of these emissions are attributed to the US health care system.^8,9 Climate science has shown we must limit CO₂ emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, with the sixth assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement targeting large emission reductions within the next decade.¹⁰ In August 2021, the US Department of Health and Human Services created the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Rachel L. Levine, MD, has committed to reducing the carbon emissions from the health care sector by 25% in the next decade, in line with scientific consensus regarding necessary changes.¹¹

The dermatologic impacts of climate change are myriad. Rising temperatures, increasing air and water pollution, and stratospheric ozone depletion will lead to expanded geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases, worsening of chronic skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis/eczema and pemphigus, and increasing rates of skin cancer.¹² For instance, warmer temperatures have allowed mosquitoes of the Aedes genus to infest new areas, leading to outbreaks of viral illnesses with cutaneous manifestations such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus in previously nonindigenous regions.¹³ Rising temperatures also have been associated with an expanding geographic range of tick- and sandfly-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and cutaneous leishmaniasis.^13,14 Additionally, short-term exposure to air pollution from wildfire smoke has been associated with an increased use of health care services by patients with atopic dermatitis.¹⁵ Increased levels of air pollutants also have been found to be associated with psoriasis flares as well as hyperpigmentation and wrinkle formation.^16,17 Skin cancer incidence is predicted to rise due to increased UV radiation exposure secondary to stratospheric ozone depletion.¹⁸

Although the effects of climate change are significant and the magnitude of the climate crisis may feel overwhelming, it is essential to avoid doomerism and focus on meaningful impactful actions. Current CO₂ emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, and the choices we make now commit future generations to live in a world shaped by our decisions. Importantly, there are impactful and low-cost, cost-effective, or cost-saving changes that can be made to mitigate the climate crisis. Herein, we provide 10 practical actionable interventions for dermatologists to help combat climate change.

10 Interventions for Dermatologists to Combat Climate Change

1. Consider switching to renewable sources of energy. Making this switch often is the most impactful decision a dermatologist can make to address climate change. The electricity sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US health care system, and dermatology outpatient practices in particular have been observed to have a higher peak energy consumption than most other specialties studied.^19,20 Many dermatology practices—both privately owned and academic—can switch to renewable energy seamlessly through power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are contracts between power providers and private entities to install renewable energy equipment or source renewable energy from offsite sources at a fixed rate. Using PPAs instead of traditional fossil fuel energy can provide cost savings as well as protect buyers from electrical price volatility. Numerous health care systems utilize PPAs such as Kaiser Permanente, Cleveland Clinic, and Rochester Regional Health. Additionally, dermatologists can directly purchase renewable energy equipment and eventually receive a return on investment from substantially lowered electric bills. It is important to note that the cost of commercial solar energy systems has decreased 69% since 2010 with further cost reductions predicted.^21,22

2. Reduce standby power consumption. This refers to the use of electricity by a device when it appears to be off or is not in use, which can lead to considerable energy consumption and subsequently a larger carbon footprint for your practice. Ensuring electronics such as phone chargers, light fixtures, television screens, and computers are switched off prior to the end of the workday can make a large difference; for instance, a single radiology department at the University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland) found that if clinical workstations were shut down when not in use after an 8-hour workday, it would save 83,866 kWh of energy and $9225.33 per year.²³ Additionally, using power strips with an automatic shutoff feature to shut off power to devices not in use provides a more convenient way to reduce standby power.

3. Optimize thermostat settings. An analysis of energy consumption in 157,000 US health care facilities found that space heating and cooling accounted for 40% of their total energy consumption.²⁴ Thus, ensuring your thermostat and heating/cooling systems are working efficiently can conserve a substantial amount of energy. For maximum efficiency, it is recommended to set air conditioners to 74 °F (24 °C) and heaters to 68 °F (20 °C) or employ smart thermostats to optimally adjust temperatures when the office is not in use.²⁵ In addition, routinely replacing or cleaning air conditioner filters can lower energy consumption by 5% to 15%.²⁶ Similarly, improving insulation and ruggedization of both homes and offices may reduce heating and cooling waste and limit costs and emissions as a result.

4. Offer bicycle racks and charging ports for electric vehicles. In the United States, transportation generates more greenhouse gas emissions than any other source, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels to power automobiles, trains, and planes. Because bicycles do not consume any fossil fuels and the use of electric vehicles has been found to result in substantial air pollution health benefits, encouraging the use of both can make a considerable positive impact on our climate.²⁷ Providing these resources not only allows those who already travel sustainably to continue to do so but also serves as a reminder to your patients that sustainability is important to you as their health care provider. As electric vehicle sales continue to climb, infrastructure to support their use, including charging stations, will grow in importance. A physician’s office that offers a car-charging station may soon have a competitive advantage over others in the area.

5. Ensure properly regulated medical waste management. Regulated medical waste (also known as infectious medical waste or red bag waste) refers to health care–generated waste unsuitable for disposal in municipal solid waste systems due to concern for the spread of infectious or pathogenic materials. This waste largely is disposed via incineration, which harms the environment in a multitude of ways—both through harmful byproducts and from the CO₂ emissions required to ship the waste to special processing facilities.²⁸ Incineration of regulated medical waste emits potent toxins such as dioxins and furans as well as particulate matter, which contribute to air pollution. Ensuring only materials with infectious potential (as defined by each state’s Environmental Protection Agency) are disposed in regulated medical waste containers can dramatically reduce the harmful effects of incineration. Additionally, limiting regulated medical waste can be very cost-effective, as its disposal is 5- to 10-times more expensive than that of unregulated medical waste.²⁹ Simple nudge measures such as educating staff about what waste goes in which receptacle, placing signage over the red bag waste to prompt staff to pause to consider if use of that bin is required before utilizing, using weights or clasps to make opening red bag waste containers slightly harder, and positioning different trash receptacles in different parts of examination rooms may help reduce inappropriate use of red bag waste.

6. Consider virtual platforms when possible. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual meeting platforms saw a considerable increase in usage by dermatologists. Teledermatology for patient care became much more widely adopted, and traditionally in-person meetings turned virtual.³⁰ The reduction in emissions from these changes was remarkable. A recent study looking at the environmental impact of 3 months of teledermatology visits early during the COVID-19 pandemic found that 1476 teledermatology appointments saved 55,737 miles of car travel, equivalent to 15.37 metric tons of CO₂.³¹ Whether for patient care when appropriate, academic conferences and continuing medical education credit, or for interviews (eg, medical students, residents, other staff), use of virtual platforms can reduce unnecessary travel and therefore substantially reduce travel-related emissions. When travel is unavoidable, consider exploring validated vetted companies that offer carbon offsets to reduce the harmful environmental impact of high-emission flights.

7. Limit use of single-use disposable items. Although single-use items such as examination gloves or needles are necessary in a dermatology practice, there are many opportunities to incorporate reusable items in your workplace. For instance, you can replace plastic cutlery and single-use plates in kitchen or dining areas with reusable alternatives. Additionally, using reusable isolation gowns instead of their single-use counterparts can help reduce waste; a reusable isolation gown system for providers including laundering services was found to consume 28% less energy and emit 30% fewer greenhouse gases than a single-use isolation gown system.³² Similarly, opting for reusable instruments instead of single-use instruments when possible also can help reduce your practice’s carbon footprint. Carefully evaluating each part of your “dermatology visit supply chain” may offer opportunities to utilize additional cost-saving, environmentally friendly options; for example, an individually plastic-wrapped Dermablade vs a bulk-packaged blade for shave biopsies has a higher cost and worse environmental impact. A single gauze often is sufficient for shave biopsies, but many practices open a plastic container of bulk gauze, much of which results in waste that too often is inappropriately disposed of as regulated medical waste despite not being saturated in blood/body fluids.

8. Educate on the effects of climate change. Dermatologists and other physicians have the unique opportunity to teach members of their community every day through patient care. Physicians are trusted messengers, and appropriately counseling patients regarding the risks of climate change and its effects on their dermatologic health is in line with both American Medical Association and American College of Physicians guidelines.^3,4 For instance, patients with Lyme disease in Canada or Maine were unheard of a few decades ago, but now they are common; flares of atopic dermatitis in regions adjacent to recent wildfires may be attributable to harmful particulate matter resulting from fossil-fueled climate change and record droughts. Educating medical trainees on the impacts of climate change is just as vital, as it is a topic that often is neglected in medical school and residency curricula.³³

9. Install water-efficient toilets and faucets. Anthropogenic climate change has been shown to increase the duration and intensity of droughts throughout the world.³⁴ Much of the western United States also is experiencing record droughts. One way in which dermatology practices can work to combat droughts is through the use of water-conserving toilets, faucets, and urinals. Using water fixtures with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense label is a convenient way to do so. The WaterSense label helps identify water fixtures certified to use at least 20% less water as well as save energy and decrease water costs.

10. Advocate through local and national organizations. There are numerous ways in which dermatologists can advocate for action against climate change. Joining professional organizations focused on addressing the climate crisis can help you connect with fellow dermatologists and physicians. The Expert Resource Group on Climate Change and Environmental Issues affiliated with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) is one such organization with many opportunities to raise awareness within the field of dermatology. The AAD recently joined the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, an organization providing opportunities for policy and media outreach as well as research on climate change. Advocacy also can mean joining your local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility or encouraging divestment from fossil fuel companies within your institution. Voicing support for climate change–focused lectures at events such as grand rounds and society meetings at the local, regional, and state-wide levels can help raise awareness. As the dermatologic effects of climate change grow, being knowledgeable of the views of future leaders in our specialty and country on this issue will become increasingly important.

Final Thoughts

In addition to the climate-friendly decisions one can make as a dermatologist, there are many personal lifestyle choices to consider. Small dietary changes such as limiting consumption of beef and minimizing food waste can have large downstream effects. Opting for transportation via train and limiting air travel are both impactful decisions in reducing CO₂ emissions. Similarly, switching to an electric vehicle or vehicle with minimal emissions can work to reduce greenhouse gas accumulation. For additional resources, note the AAD has partnered with My Green Doctor, a nonprofit service for health care practices that includes practical cost-saving suggestions to support sustainability in physician practices.

A recent joint publication in more than 200 medical journals described climate change as the greatest threat to global public health.³⁵ Climate change is having devastating effects on dermatologic health and will only continue to do so if not addressed now. Dermatologists have the opportunity to join with our colleagues in the house of medicine and to take action to fight climate change and mitigate the health impacts on our patients, the population, and future generations.

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

Radiation therapy, along with surgery and systemic therapy, is a primary therapeutic modality for cancer management. At least half of cancer patients receive radiation as part of their treatment regimen.¹ Multiple studies demonstrate that radiotherapy is underutilized worldwide.² One reason for underutilization of radiotherapy globally is poor access to this treatment modality. Factors that contribute to poor access include long wait times for consultation, delays in treatment initiation, distance to a treatment facility, and poor coordination of care.

Taskforce Findings

The presence of onsite radiation oncology and its impact on utilization of radiotherapy is poorly studied. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recently conducted a survey to determine the barriers to referral and timeliness of treatment for palliative radiotherapy within the VHA.³ Key findings of this study comparing centers with onsite radiation departments with centers without onsite radiation departments include:

a. Radiation consults are more likely to be completed within 1 week of consult request at centers with onsite radiation therapy (68% vs 31%, respectively; P = .01).

b. Centers with onsite radiation therapy more frequently deliver emergent treatment within 24 hours for patients with spinal cord compression, an emergency condition in which prompt radiation can prevent or minimize long-term neurologic disability (94% vs 70%, respectively; P = .01).

c. Referring practitioners with onsite radiation departments are less likely to report difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy (0% vs 20%, respectively; P = .006).

d. Referring practitioners with onsite radiotherapy report patient travel as a barrier to referral for palliative radiotherapy less frequently (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

e. Practitioners with onsite radiation oncology departments are more likely to have multidisciplinary tumor boards (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01) and are more likely to be influenced by radiation oncology recommendations at tumor boards (69% vs 44%, respectively; P = .02).

Based on the findings of this study, the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce has prepared this consensus statement regarding the importance of onsite radiation oncology departments at VHA medical centers. More information regarding our 5 key findings and their implications for patient care are as follows:

Timeliness of Radiation Oncology Consultation

Delays in radiation oncology consultation, which can also delay treatment initiation, are associated with poor satisfaction among both patients and referring clinicians.⁴ Wait times have been identified as a barrier to utilization of radiotherapy by both patients and clinicians.^5,6 Furthermore, delays in initiation of definitive therapy have been associated with worse outcomes, including worse overall survival.^7,8 Our survey study demonstrates that consults for palliative radiotherapy are occurring in a more timely manner at centers with onsite radiation departments. Radiation oncology consults are more frequently completed within 1 week at centers with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with centers without onsite radiation oncology departments (68% vs 31%, P = .01). This trend would likely be seen for nonpalliative, definitive cases as well. The presence of radiation oncology departments onsite at VHA medical centers is an important component of timely care for veterans to optimize outcomes of cancer treatment.

Timely Delivery of Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies

There are a few scenarios in which emergent radiation treatment, within 24 hours, is indicated. These include malignant spinal cord compression, uncal herniation from brain metastasis, superior vena cava syndrome, and tumor hemorrhage.⁹ Studies on management of metastatic spinal cord compression demonstrate that delays in treatment are associated with reduced ambulation¹⁰ as well as loss of sphincter function and incontinence.¹¹

Our study demonstrates that VHA medical centers with onsite radiotherapy more frequently deliver radiotherapy within 24 hours for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. This timely delivery of treatment is critical to optimizing functional status and quality of life in patients requiring treatment for oncologic emergencies. Revisiting treatment pathways for such situations at regular intervals is crucial given that residents and staff may rotate and be unfamiliar with emergency protocols.

Communication With Radiation Oncologists

Several studies have demonstrated that the inability to contact a radiation oncologist and poor communication result in decreased referrals for palliative radiotherapy.^12,13 Our study demonstrates that onsite radiation oncology is associated with improved ability to contact a radiation oncologist. About 20% of clinicians at facilities without onsite radiation oncology reported difficulty contacting a radiation oncologist, compared with 0% at facilities with onsite radiation departments (P = .006).

It is possible that increased radiation oncology presence at VHA medical centers, through attenuation of barriers related to contacting a radiation oncologist and improved communication, would lead to increased use of radiotherapy. Increased communication between referring clinicians and radiation oncologists also can help with education of those clinicians making the referral. Since knowledge gaps have been identified in multiple studies as a barrier to referral for radiotherapy, such communication and increased education on the role of radiotherapy could increase use.^12-14

Patient Travel

Patient ability to travel was the most commonly reported barrier (81%) to referral for palliative radiotherapy in our study. Travel time and transportation difficulties have been established in multiple studies as barriers to radiotherapy for both definitive and palliative management.^15-18 Travel for radiotherapy was much less frequently reported as a barrier among respondents with onsite radiation oncology departments compared with those without onsite radiation departments (28% vs 71%, respectively; P < .001).

It is therefore possible that expansion of VHA radiation oncology services, allowing for provision of onsite radiotherapy at more VHA facilities, would reduce travel burden. Increasing travel accommodations for patients and provision of patient lodging on hospital campuses, which is already offered at some VHA medical centers (ie, Fisher House Foundation), could also help attenuate this barrier.

Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards

Our study demonstrates that centers with onsite radiation departments more frequently hold multidisciplinary tumor boards compared with centers without radiation departments (31% vs 3%, respectively; P = .01). Multidisciplinary tumor boards allow subspecialties to meet regularly to communicate about patient care and can help mitigate barriers related to communication and education of the referring health care practitioners.

As cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards, health care practitioners have the opportunity to make recommendations and provide education on potential benefits and/or downsides of treatments offered by their respective specialties. Several studies have demonstrated that cases discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards are more likely to be referred for radiation therapy.^19-21 Furthermore, multidisciplinary tumor boards have been associated with improved treatment outcomes.²²

Conclusions

In this consensus statement the VHA Palliative Radiotherapy Taskforce recommends the optimization of use of radiotherapy within the VHA. Radiation oncology services should be maintained where present in the VHA, with consideration for expansion of services to additional facilities. Telehealth should be used to expedite consults and treatment. Hypofractionation should be used, when appropriate, to ease travel burden. Options for transportation services and onsite housing, or hospitalization, should be understood by practitioners and offered to patients to mitigate barriers related to travel.

In the past 10 years, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have exploded in numerous fields, including medicine. Myriad publications report that the use of AI in health care is increasing, and AI has shown utility in many medical specialties, eg, pathology, radiology, and oncology.^1,2

In cancer pathology, AI was able not only to detect various cancers, but also to subtype and grade them. In addition, AI could predict survival, the success of therapeutic response, and underlying mutations from histopathologic images.³ In other medical fields, AI applications are as notable. For example, in imaging specialties like radiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, AI is being used for image recognition, enhancement, and segmentation. In addition, AI is beneficial for predicting disease progression, survival, and response to therapy in other medical specialties. Finally, AI may help with administrative tasks like scheduling.

However, many obstacles to successfully implementing AI programs in the clinical setting exist, including clinical data limitations and ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI understanding.² To address these barriers to successful clinical AI implementation, we decided to create a formal governing body at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Accordingly, the hospital AI committee charter was officially approved on July 22, 2021. Our model could be used by both US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals throughout the country.

AI Committee

The vision of the AI committee is to improve outcomes and experiences for our veterans by developing trustworthy AI capabilities to support the VA mission. The mission is to build robust capacity in AI to create and apply innovative AI solutions and transform the VA by facilitating a learning environment that supports the delivery of world-class benefits and services to our veterans. Our vision and mission are aligned with the VA National AI Institute. ⁴

The AI Committee comprises 7 subcommittees: ethics, AI clinical product evaluation, education, data sharing and acquisition, research, 3D printing, and improvement and innovation. The role of the ethics subcommittee is to ensure the ethical and equitable implementation of clinical AI. We created the ethics subcommittee guidelines based on the World Health Organization ethics and governance of AI for health documents.⁵ They include 6 basic principles: protecting human autonomy; promoting human well-being and safety and the public interest; ensuring transparency, explainability, and intelligibility; fostering responsibility and accountability; ensuring inclusiveness and equity; and promoting AI that is responsive and sustainable (Table 1).

Implementations

After a comprehensive evaluation, we implemented 2 ClearRead (Riverain Technologies) AI radiology solutions. ClearRead CT Vessel Suppress produces a secondary series of computed tomography (CT) images, suppressing vessels and other normal structures within the lungs to improve nodule detectability, and ClearRead Xray Bone Suppress, which increases the visibility of soft tissue in standard chest X-rays by suppressing the bone on the digital image without the need for 2 exposures.

The role of the education subcommittee is to educate the staff about AI and how it can improve patient care. Every Friday, we email an AI article of the week to our practitioners. In addition, we publish a newsletter, and we organize an annual AI conference. The first conference in 2022 included speakers from the National AI Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, the University of South Florida, and our facility.

As the name indicates, the data sharing and acquisition subcommittee oversees preparing data for our clinical and research projects. The role of the research subcommittee is to coordinate and promote AI research with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Other Technologies

Although 3D printing does not fall under the umbrella of AI, we have decided to include it in our future-oriented AI committee. We created an online 3D printing course to promote the technology throughout the VA. We 3D print organ models to help surgeons prepare for complicated operations. In addition, together with our colleagues from the University of Florida, we used 3D printing to address the shortage of swabs for COVID-19 testing. The VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (Veterans Integrated Services Network 8) has an active Innovation and Improvement Committee. ⁹ Our improvement and innovation subcommittee serves as a coordinating body with the network committee .

Conclusions

Through the hospital AI committee, we believe that we may overcome many obstacles to successfully implementing AI applications in the clinical setting, including the ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

In the past 10 years, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have exploded in numerous fields, including medicine. Myriad publications report that the use of AI in health care is increasing, and AI has shown utility in many medical specialties, eg, pathology, radiology, and oncology.^1,2

In cancer pathology, AI was able not only to detect various cancers, but also to subtype and grade them. In addition, AI could predict survival, the success of therapeutic response, and underlying mutations from histopathologic images.³ In other medical fields, AI applications are as notable. For example, in imaging specialties like radiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, AI is being used for image recognition, enhancement, and segmentation. In addition, AI is beneficial for predicting disease progression, survival, and response to therapy in other medical specialties. Finally, AI may help with administrative tasks like scheduling.

However, many obstacles to successfully implementing AI programs in the clinical setting exist, including clinical data limitations and ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI understanding.² To address these barriers to successful clinical AI implementation, we decided to create a formal governing body at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Accordingly, the hospital AI committee charter was officially approved on July 22, 2021. Our model could be used by both US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals throughout the country.

AI Committee

The vision of the AI committee is to improve outcomes and experiences for our veterans by developing trustworthy AI capabilities to support the VA mission. The mission is to build robust capacity in AI to create and apply innovative AI solutions and transform the VA by facilitating a learning environment that supports the delivery of world-class benefits and services to our veterans. Our vision and mission are aligned with the VA National AI Institute. ⁴

The AI Committee comprises 7 subcommittees: ethics, AI clinical product evaluation, education, data sharing and acquisition, research, 3D printing, and improvement and innovation. The role of the ethics subcommittee is to ensure the ethical and equitable implementation of clinical AI. We created the ethics subcommittee guidelines based on the World Health Organization ethics and governance of AI for health documents.⁵ They include 6 basic principles: protecting human autonomy; promoting human well-being and safety and the public interest; ensuring transparency, explainability, and intelligibility; fostering responsibility and accountability; ensuring inclusiveness and equity; and promoting AI that is responsive and sustainable (Table 1).

Implementations

After a comprehensive evaluation, we implemented 2 ClearRead (Riverain Technologies) AI radiology solutions. ClearRead CT Vessel Suppress produces a secondary series of computed tomography (CT) images, suppressing vessels and other normal structures within the lungs to improve nodule detectability, and ClearRead Xray Bone Suppress, which increases the visibility of soft tissue in standard chest X-rays by suppressing the bone on the digital image without the need for 2 exposures.

The role of the education subcommittee is to educate the staff about AI and how it can improve patient care. Every Friday, we email an AI article of the week to our practitioners. In addition, we publish a newsletter, and we organize an annual AI conference. The first conference in 2022 included speakers from the National AI Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, the University of South Florida, and our facility.

As the name indicates, the data sharing and acquisition subcommittee oversees preparing data for our clinical and research projects. The role of the research subcommittee is to coordinate and promote AI research with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Other Technologies

Although 3D printing does not fall under the umbrella of AI, we have decided to include it in our future-oriented AI committee. We created an online 3D printing course to promote the technology throughout the VA. We 3D print organ models to help surgeons prepare for complicated operations. In addition, together with our colleagues from the University of Florida, we used 3D printing to address the shortage of swabs for COVID-19 testing. The VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (Veterans Integrated Services Network 8) has an active Innovation and Improvement Committee. ⁹ Our improvement and innovation subcommittee serves as a coordinating body with the network committee .

Conclusions

Through the hospital AI committee, we believe that we may overcome many obstacles to successfully implementing AI applications in the clinical setting, including the ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

In the past 10 years, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have exploded in numerous fields, including medicine. Myriad publications report that the use of AI in health care is increasing, and AI has shown utility in many medical specialties, eg, pathology, radiology, and oncology.^1,2

In cancer pathology, AI was able not only to detect various cancers, but also to subtype and grade them. In addition, AI could predict survival, the success of therapeutic response, and underlying mutations from histopathologic images.³ In other medical fields, AI applications are as notable. For example, in imaging specialties like radiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, AI is being used for image recognition, enhancement, and segmentation. In addition, AI is beneficial for predicting disease progression, survival, and response to therapy in other medical specialties. Finally, AI may help with administrative tasks like scheduling.

However, many obstacles to successfully implementing AI programs in the clinical setting exist, including clinical data limitations and ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI understanding.² To address these barriers to successful clinical AI implementation, we decided to create a formal governing body at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Accordingly, the hospital AI committee charter was officially approved on July 22, 2021. Our model could be used by both US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals throughout the country.

AI Committee

The vision of the AI committee is to improve outcomes and experiences for our veterans by developing trustworthy AI capabilities to support the VA mission. The mission is to build robust capacity in AI to create and apply innovative AI solutions and transform the VA by facilitating a learning environment that supports the delivery of world-class benefits and services to our veterans. Our vision and mission are aligned with the VA National AI Institute. ⁴

The AI Committee comprises 7 subcommittees: ethics, AI clinical product evaluation, education, data sharing and acquisition, research, 3D printing, and improvement and innovation. The role of the ethics subcommittee is to ensure the ethical and equitable implementation of clinical AI. We created the ethics subcommittee guidelines based on the World Health Organization ethics and governance of AI for health documents.⁵ They include 6 basic principles: protecting human autonomy; promoting human well-being and safety and the public interest; ensuring transparency, explainability, and intelligibility; fostering responsibility and accountability; ensuring inclusiveness and equity; and promoting AI that is responsive and sustainable (Table 1).

Implementations

After a comprehensive evaluation, we implemented 2 ClearRead (Riverain Technologies) AI radiology solutions. ClearRead CT Vessel Suppress produces a secondary series of computed tomography (CT) images, suppressing vessels and other normal structures within the lungs to improve nodule detectability, and ClearRead Xray Bone Suppress, which increases the visibility of soft tissue in standard chest X-rays by suppressing the bone on the digital image without the need for 2 exposures.

The role of the education subcommittee is to educate the staff about AI and how it can improve patient care. Every Friday, we email an AI article of the week to our practitioners. In addition, we publish a newsletter, and we organize an annual AI conference. The first conference in 2022 included speakers from the National AI Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, the University of South Florida, and our facility.

As the name indicates, the data sharing and acquisition subcommittee oversees preparing data for our clinical and research projects. The role of the research subcommittee is to coordinate and promote AI research with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Other Technologies

Although 3D printing does not fall under the umbrella of AI, we have decided to include it in our future-oriented AI committee. We created an online 3D printing course to promote the technology throughout the VA. We 3D print organ models to help surgeons prepare for complicated operations. In addition, together with our colleagues from the University of Florida, we used 3D printing to address the shortage of swabs for COVID-19 testing. The VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (Veterans Integrated Services Network 8) has an active Innovation and Improvement Committee. ⁹ Our improvement and innovation subcommittee serves as a coordinating body with the network committee .

Conclusions

Through the hospital AI committee, we believe that we may overcome many obstacles to successfully implementing AI applications in the clinical setting, including the ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Many psychiatrists have had the grim experience of a newly referred patient explaining that her (and it is most often “her”) primary care doctor has been prescribing lorazepam 8 mg per day or alprazolam 6 mg per day and is sending her to you for help with ongoing anxiety. For conscientious psychiatrists, this means the beginning of a long tapering process along with a great deal of reassuring of a patient who is terrified of feeling overwhelmed with anxiety. The same problem occurs with patients taking large doses of sedatives who are still unable to sleep.

Mark Olfson and coauthors quantified benzodiazepine use in the United States in 2008 using a large prescription database, and found that 5.2% of adults between 18 and 80 years old were taking these drugs.¹ The percentage increased with age, to 8.7% of those 65-80 years, in whom 31% received long-term prescriptions from a psychiatrist. Benzodiazepine use was twice as prevalent in women, compared with men. This occurs despite peer-reviewed publications and articles in the popular press regarding the risks of long-term benzodiazepine use in the elderly. Fang-Yu Lin and coauthors documented a 2.23-fold higher risk of hip fracture in zolpidem users that increased with age; elderly users had a 21-fold higher incidence of fracture, compared with younger users, and were twice as likely to sustain a fracture than elderly nonusers.²

Rashona Thomas and Edid Ramos-Rivas reviewed the risks of benzodiazepines in older patients with insomnia and document the increase in serious adverse events such as falls, fractures, and cognitive and behavioral changes.³ Many patients have ongoing prescriptions that make discontinuation difficult, given the potential for withdrawal agitation, seizures, insomnia, nightmares and even psychosis.

Greta Bushnell and coauthors pointed to the problem of simultaneous prescribing of a new antidepressant with a benzodiazepine by 10% of doctors initiating antidepressants.⁴ Over 12% of this group of patients continued benzodiazepines long term, even though there was no difference in the response to antidepressant treatment at 6 months. Those with long-term benzodiazepine use were also more likely to have recent prescriptions for opiates.

A Finnish research team found that 34% of middle-aged and 55% of elderly people developed long-term use of benzodiazepines after an initial prescription.⁵ Those who became long-term users were more often older male receivers of social benefits, with psychiatric comorbidities and substance abuse histories.

Kevin Xu and coauthors reviewed a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset from 1999 to 2015 with follow-up on over 5,000 individuals in that period.⁶ They found doubling of all-cause mortality in users of benzodiazepines with or without accompanying use of opiates, a statistically significant increase.

Perhaps most alarming is the increased risk for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis in users of benzodiazepines. Two separate studies (Billoti de Gage and colleagues and Ettcheto and colleagues^7,8) provided reviews of evidence for the relationship between use of benzodiazepines and development of dementia, and repeated warnings about close monitoring of patients and the need for alternative treatments for anxiety and insomnia in the elderly.
 

Be alert to underlying issues

Overburdened primary practitioners faced with complaints about sleep and anxiety understandably turn to medication rather than taking time to discuss the reasons for these problems or to describe nonmedication approaches to relief of symptoms. Even insured patients may have very limited options for “covered” psychiatric consultation, as many competent psychiatrists have moved to a cash-only system. It is easier to renew prescriptions than to counsel patients or refer them, and many primary care practitioners have limited experience with diagnosing causes of anxiety and insomnia, much less alternative medication approaches.

Psychiatrists should be aware of the frequency of underlying mood disorders that include sleep and anxiety as prominent symptoms; in fact, these symptoms are often what motivates patients to pursue treatment. It is critical to obtain not only a personal history of symptoms beginning in childhood up to the present, but also a family history of mood and anxiety problems. Mood dysregulation disorders are highly hereditary and a family history of mania or psychosis should raise concern about the cause of symptoms in one’s patient. A strong personal and/or family history of alcohol abuse and dependence may cover underlying undiagnosed mood dysregulation. Primary care physicians may not recognize mood dysregulation unless a patient is clearly manic or psychotic.

There is a cohort of patients who do well on antidepressant medication, but anorgasmia, fatigue, and emotional blunting are common side effects that affect compliance. When patients have unexpected responses to SSRI medications such as euphoria, agitation, anxiety, insomnia, and more prominent mood swings, primary care physicians may add a benzodiazepine, expecting the problem to abate with time. Unfortunately, this often leads to ongoing use of benzodiazepines, since attempts to stop them causes withdrawal effects that are indistinguishable from the original anxiety symptoms.

Most psychiatrists are aware that some patients need mood stabilization rather than mood elevation to maintain an adequate baseline mood. Lithium, anticonvulsants, and second-generation antipsychotics may be effective without adding antidepressant medication. Managing dosing and side effects requires time for follow-up visits with patients after initiating treatment but leads to more stability and better outcomes.

Benzodiazepines are appropriate and helpful in situations that cause transient anxiety and with patients who have done poorly with other options. Intermittent use is key to avoiding tolerance and inevitable dose increases. Some individuals can take low daily doses that are harmless, though these likely only prevent withdrawal rather than preventing anxiety. The placebo effect of taking a pill is powerful. And some patients take more doses than they admit to. Most practitioners have heard stories about the alprazolam that was accidentally spilled into the sink or the prescription bottle of diazepam that was lost or the lorazepam supply that was stolen by the babysitter.

These concepts are illustrated in case examples below.
 

Case one

Ms. A, a 55-year-old married female business administrator, admitted to using zolpidem at 40 mg per night for the past several months. She began with the typical dose of 10 mg at bedtime prescribed by her internist, but after several weeks, needed an additional 10 mg at 2 a.m. to stay asleep. As weeks passed, she found that she needed an additional 20 mg when she awoke at 2 a.m. Within months, she needed 20 mg to initiate sleep and 20 mg to maintain sleep. She obtained extra zolpidem from her gynecologist and came for consultation when refill requests were refused.

Ms. A had a family history of high anxiety in her mother and depressed mood in multiple paternal relatives, including her father. She had trouble sleeping beginning in adolescence, significant premenstrual dysphoria, and postpartum depression that led to a prescription for sertraline. Instead of feeling better, Ms. A remembers being agitated and unable to sleep, so she stopped it. Ms. A was now perimenopausal, and insomnia was worse. She had gradually increased wine consumption to a bottle of wine each night after work to “settle down.” This allowed her to fall asleep, but she inevitably awoke within 4 hours. Her internist noted an elevation in ALT and asked Ms. A about alcohol consumption. She was alarmed and cut back to one glass of wine per night but again couldn’t sleep. Her internist started zolpidem at that point.

The psychiatrist explained the concepts of tolerance and addiction and a plan to slowly taper off zolpidem while using quetiapine for sleep. She decreased to 20 mg of zolpidem at bedtime with quetiapine 50 mg and was able to stay asleep. After 3 weeks, Ms. A took zolpidem 10 mg at bedtime with quetiapine 75 mg and again, was able to fall asleep and stay asleep. After another 3 weeks, she increased quetiapine to 100 mg and stopped zolpidem without difficulty. This dose of quetiapine has continued to work well without significant side effects.
 

Case two

Ms. B, a 70-year-old married housewife, was referred for help with longstanding anxiety when her primary care doctor recognized that lorazepam, initially helpful at 1 mg twice daily, had required titration to 2 mg three times daily. Ms. B was preoccupied with having lorazepam on hand and never missed a dose. She had little interest in activities beyond her home, rarely socialized, and had fallen twice. She napped for 2 hours each afternoon, and sometimes had trouble staying asleep through the night.

Ms. B was reluctant to talk about her childhood history of hostility and undermining by her mother, who clearly preferred her older brother and was competitive with Ms. B. Her father traveled for work during the week and had little time for her. Ms. B had always seen herself as stupid and unlovable, which interfered with making friends. She attended college for 1 year but dropped out to marry her husband. He was also anxious and had difficulty socializing, but they found reassurance in each other. Their only child, a son in his 40s, was estranged from them, having married a woman who disliked Ms. B. Ms. B felt hopeless about developing a relationship with her grandchildren who were rarely allowed to visit. Despite her initial shame in talking about these painful problems, Ms. B realized that she felt better and scheduled monthly visits to check in.

Ms. B understood the risks of using lorazepam and wanted to stop it but was terrified of becoming anxious again. We set up a very slow tapering schedule that lowered her total dose by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. At the same time, she began escitalopram which was effective at 20 mg. Ms. B noted that she no longer felt anxious upon awakening but was still afraid to miss a dose of lorazepam. As she felt more confident and alert, Ms. B joined a painting class at a local community center and was gratified to find that she was good at working with watercolors. She invited her neighbors to come for dinner and was surprised at how friendly and open they were. Once she had tapered to 1 mg twice daily, Ms. B began walking for exercise as she now had enough energy that it felt good to move around. After 6 months, she was completely off lorazepam, and very grateful to have discovered her capacity to improve her pleasure in life.
 

Case three

Ms. C, a 48-year-old attorney was referred for help with anxiety and distress in the face of separation from her husband who had admitted to an affair after she heard him talking to his girlfriend from their basement. She was unsure whether she wanted to save the marriage or end it and was horrified at the thought of dating. She had never felt especially anxious or depressed and had a supportive circle of close friends. She was uncharacteristically unable to concentrate long enough to consider her options because of anxiety.

A dose of clonazepam 0.5 mg allowed her to stay alert but calm enough to reflect on her feelings. She used it intermittently over several months and maintained regular individual psychotherapy sessions that allowed her to review the situation thoroughly. On her psychiatrist’s recommendation, she contacted a colleague to represent her if she decided to initiate divorce proceedings. She attempted to engage her husband in marital therapy, and his reluctance made it clear to her that she could no longer trust him. Ms. C offered him the option of a dissolution if he was willing to cooperate, or to sue for divorce if not. Once Ms. C regained her confidence and recognized that she would survive this emotionally fraught situation, she no longer needed clonazepam.
 

Summary

Benzodiazepines are particularly ill-suited to scheduled use since the risk of tolerance, escalating doses, and psychological addiction along with pharmacologic tolerance is high. The risks, which include cognitive slowing, falls and fractures, and withdrawal phenomena when abruptly stopped, make this class dangerous for all patients but particularly the elderly. Benzodiazepines are nonetheless useful medications for patients able to use them intermittently, whether on an alternating basis with other medications (for example, quetiapine alternating with clonazepam for chronic insomnia) or because symptoms of anxiety are intermittent. Psychiatrists treating tolerant patients should be familiar with the approach of tapering slowly while introducing more appropriate medications at adequate doses to manage symptoms.

Dr. Kaplan is training and supervising psychoanalyst at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute and volunteer professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. The author reported no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Olfson M et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;72(2):136-42. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1763.

2. Lin FY et al. Sleep. 2014 Apr 1;37(4):673-9. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3566.

3. Thomas R and Ramos-Rivas E. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(6):266-70. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20180513-01.

4. Bushnell GA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;74(7):747-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1273.

5. Taipale H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2019029. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19029.

6. Xu KY et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028557. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28557.

7. Billioti de Gage S et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g5205. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

8. Ettcheto M et al. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020 Jan 8;11:344. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00344.

Many psychiatrists have had the grim experience of a newly referred patient explaining that her (and it is most often “her”) primary care doctor has been prescribing lorazepam 8 mg per day or alprazolam 6 mg per day and is sending her to you for help with ongoing anxiety. For conscientious psychiatrists, this means the beginning of a long tapering process along with a great deal of reassuring of a patient who is terrified of feeling overwhelmed with anxiety. The same problem occurs with patients taking large doses of sedatives who are still unable to sleep.

Mark Olfson and coauthors quantified benzodiazepine use in the United States in 2008 using a large prescription database, and found that 5.2% of adults between 18 and 80 years old were taking these drugs.¹ The percentage increased with age, to 8.7% of those 65-80 years, in whom 31% received long-term prescriptions from a psychiatrist. Benzodiazepine use was twice as prevalent in women, compared with men. This occurs despite peer-reviewed publications and articles in the popular press regarding the risks of long-term benzodiazepine use in the elderly. Fang-Yu Lin and coauthors documented a 2.23-fold higher risk of hip fracture in zolpidem users that increased with age; elderly users had a 21-fold higher incidence of fracture, compared with younger users, and were twice as likely to sustain a fracture than elderly nonusers.²

Rashona Thomas and Edid Ramos-Rivas reviewed the risks of benzodiazepines in older patients with insomnia and document the increase in serious adverse events such as falls, fractures, and cognitive and behavioral changes.³ Many patients have ongoing prescriptions that make discontinuation difficult, given the potential for withdrawal agitation, seizures, insomnia, nightmares and even psychosis.

Greta Bushnell and coauthors pointed to the problem of simultaneous prescribing of a new antidepressant with a benzodiazepine by 10% of doctors initiating antidepressants.⁴ Over 12% of this group of patients continued benzodiazepines long term, even though there was no difference in the response to antidepressant treatment at 6 months. Those with long-term benzodiazepine use were also more likely to have recent prescriptions for opiates.

A Finnish research team found that 34% of middle-aged and 55% of elderly people developed long-term use of benzodiazepines after an initial prescription.⁵ Those who became long-term users were more often older male receivers of social benefits, with psychiatric comorbidities and substance abuse histories.

Kevin Xu and coauthors reviewed a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset from 1999 to 2015 with follow-up on over 5,000 individuals in that period.⁶ They found doubling of all-cause mortality in users of benzodiazepines with or without accompanying use of opiates, a statistically significant increase.

Perhaps most alarming is the increased risk for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis in users of benzodiazepines. Two separate studies (Billoti de Gage and colleagues and Ettcheto and colleagues^7,8) provided reviews of evidence for the relationship between use of benzodiazepines and development of dementia, and repeated warnings about close monitoring of patients and the need for alternative treatments for anxiety and insomnia in the elderly.
 

Be alert to underlying issues

Overburdened primary practitioners faced with complaints about sleep and anxiety understandably turn to medication rather than taking time to discuss the reasons for these problems or to describe nonmedication approaches to relief of symptoms. Even insured patients may have very limited options for “covered” psychiatric consultation, as many competent psychiatrists have moved to a cash-only system. It is easier to renew prescriptions than to counsel patients or refer them, and many primary care practitioners have limited experience with diagnosing causes of anxiety and insomnia, much less alternative medication approaches.

Psychiatrists should be aware of the frequency of underlying mood disorders that include sleep and anxiety as prominent symptoms; in fact, these symptoms are often what motivates patients to pursue treatment. It is critical to obtain not only a personal history of symptoms beginning in childhood up to the present, but also a family history of mood and anxiety problems. Mood dysregulation disorders are highly hereditary and a family history of mania or psychosis should raise concern about the cause of symptoms in one’s patient. A strong personal and/or family history of alcohol abuse and dependence may cover underlying undiagnosed mood dysregulation. Primary care physicians may not recognize mood dysregulation unless a patient is clearly manic or psychotic.

There is a cohort of patients who do well on antidepressant medication, but anorgasmia, fatigue, and emotional blunting are common side effects that affect compliance. When patients have unexpected responses to SSRI medications such as euphoria, agitation, anxiety, insomnia, and more prominent mood swings, primary care physicians may add a benzodiazepine, expecting the problem to abate with time. Unfortunately, this often leads to ongoing use of benzodiazepines, since attempts to stop them causes withdrawal effects that are indistinguishable from the original anxiety symptoms.

Most psychiatrists are aware that some patients need mood stabilization rather than mood elevation to maintain an adequate baseline mood. Lithium, anticonvulsants, and second-generation antipsychotics may be effective without adding antidepressant medication. Managing dosing and side effects requires time for follow-up visits with patients after initiating treatment but leads to more stability and better outcomes.

Benzodiazepines are appropriate and helpful in situations that cause transient anxiety and with patients who have done poorly with other options. Intermittent use is key to avoiding tolerance and inevitable dose increases. Some individuals can take low daily doses that are harmless, though these likely only prevent withdrawal rather than preventing anxiety. The placebo effect of taking a pill is powerful. And some patients take more doses than they admit to. Most practitioners have heard stories about the alprazolam that was accidentally spilled into the sink or the prescription bottle of diazepam that was lost or the lorazepam supply that was stolen by the babysitter.

These concepts are illustrated in case examples below.
 

Case one

Ms. A, a 55-year-old married female business administrator, admitted to using zolpidem at 40 mg per night for the past several months. She began with the typical dose of 10 mg at bedtime prescribed by her internist, but after several weeks, needed an additional 10 mg at 2 a.m. to stay asleep. As weeks passed, she found that she needed an additional 20 mg when she awoke at 2 a.m. Within months, she needed 20 mg to initiate sleep and 20 mg to maintain sleep. She obtained extra zolpidem from her gynecologist and came for consultation when refill requests were refused.

Ms. A had a family history of high anxiety in her mother and depressed mood in multiple paternal relatives, including her father. She had trouble sleeping beginning in adolescence, significant premenstrual dysphoria, and postpartum depression that led to a prescription for sertraline. Instead of feeling better, Ms. A remembers being agitated and unable to sleep, so she stopped it. Ms. A was now perimenopausal, and insomnia was worse. She had gradually increased wine consumption to a bottle of wine each night after work to “settle down.” This allowed her to fall asleep, but she inevitably awoke within 4 hours. Her internist noted an elevation in ALT and asked Ms. A about alcohol consumption. She was alarmed and cut back to one glass of wine per night but again couldn’t sleep. Her internist started zolpidem at that point.

The psychiatrist explained the concepts of tolerance and addiction and a plan to slowly taper off zolpidem while using quetiapine for sleep. She decreased to 20 mg of zolpidem at bedtime with quetiapine 50 mg and was able to stay asleep. After 3 weeks, Ms. A took zolpidem 10 mg at bedtime with quetiapine 75 mg and again, was able to fall asleep and stay asleep. After another 3 weeks, she increased quetiapine to 100 mg and stopped zolpidem without difficulty. This dose of quetiapine has continued to work well without significant side effects.
 

Case two

Ms. B, a 70-year-old married housewife, was referred for help with longstanding anxiety when her primary care doctor recognized that lorazepam, initially helpful at 1 mg twice daily, had required titration to 2 mg three times daily. Ms. B was preoccupied with having lorazepam on hand and never missed a dose. She had little interest in activities beyond her home, rarely socialized, and had fallen twice. She napped for 2 hours each afternoon, and sometimes had trouble staying asleep through the night.

Ms. B was reluctant to talk about her childhood history of hostility and undermining by her mother, who clearly preferred her older brother and was competitive with Ms. B. Her father traveled for work during the week and had little time for her. Ms. B had always seen herself as stupid and unlovable, which interfered with making friends. She attended college for 1 year but dropped out to marry her husband. He was also anxious and had difficulty socializing, but they found reassurance in each other. Their only child, a son in his 40s, was estranged from them, having married a woman who disliked Ms. B. Ms. B felt hopeless about developing a relationship with her grandchildren who were rarely allowed to visit. Despite her initial shame in talking about these painful problems, Ms. B realized that she felt better and scheduled monthly visits to check in.

Ms. B understood the risks of using lorazepam and wanted to stop it but was terrified of becoming anxious again. We set up a very slow tapering schedule that lowered her total dose by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. At the same time, she began escitalopram which was effective at 20 mg. Ms. B noted that she no longer felt anxious upon awakening but was still afraid to miss a dose of lorazepam. As she felt more confident and alert, Ms. B joined a painting class at a local community center and was gratified to find that she was good at working with watercolors. She invited her neighbors to come for dinner and was surprised at how friendly and open they were. Once she had tapered to 1 mg twice daily, Ms. B began walking for exercise as she now had enough energy that it felt good to move around. After 6 months, she was completely off lorazepam, and very grateful to have discovered her capacity to improve her pleasure in life.
 

Case three

Ms. C, a 48-year-old attorney was referred for help with anxiety and distress in the face of separation from her husband who had admitted to an affair after she heard him talking to his girlfriend from their basement. She was unsure whether she wanted to save the marriage or end it and was horrified at the thought of dating. She had never felt especially anxious or depressed and had a supportive circle of close friends. She was uncharacteristically unable to concentrate long enough to consider her options because of anxiety.

A dose of clonazepam 0.5 mg allowed her to stay alert but calm enough to reflect on her feelings. She used it intermittently over several months and maintained regular individual psychotherapy sessions that allowed her to review the situation thoroughly. On her psychiatrist’s recommendation, she contacted a colleague to represent her if she decided to initiate divorce proceedings. She attempted to engage her husband in marital therapy, and his reluctance made it clear to her that she could no longer trust him. Ms. C offered him the option of a dissolution if he was willing to cooperate, or to sue for divorce if not. Once Ms. C regained her confidence and recognized that she would survive this emotionally fraught situation, she no longer needed clonazepam.
 

Summary

Benzodiazepines are particularly ill-suited to scheduled use since the risk of tolerance, escalating doses, and psychological addiction along with pharmacologic tolerance is high. The risks, which include cognitive slowing, falls and fractures, and withdrawal phenomena when abruptly stopped, make this class dangerous for all patients but particularly the elderly. Benzodiazepines are nonetheless useful medications for patients able to use them intermittently, whether on an alternating basis with other medications (for example, quetiapine alternating with clonazepam for chronic insomnia) or because symptoms of anxiety are intermittent. Psychiatrists treating tolerant patients should be familiar with the approach of tapering slowly while introducing more appropriate medications at adequate doses to manage symptoms.

Dr. Kaplan is training and supervising psychoanalyst at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute and volunteer professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. The author reported no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Olfson M et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;72(2):136-42. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1763.

2. Lin FY et al. Sleep. 2014 Apr 1;37(4):673-9. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3566.

3. Thomas R and Ramos-Rivas E. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(6):266-70. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20180513-01.

4. Bushnell GA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;74(7):747-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1273.

5. Taipale H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2019029. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19029.

6. Xu KY et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028557. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28557.

7. Billioti de Gage S et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g5205. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

8. Ettcheto M et al. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020 Jan 8;11:344. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00344.

Many psychiatrists have had the grim experience of a newly referred patient explaining that her (and it is most often “her”) primary care doctor has been prescribing lorazepam 8 mg per day or alprazolam 6 mg per day and is sending her to you for help with ongoing anxiety. For conscientious psychiatrists, this means the beginning of a long tapering process along with a great deal of reassuring of a patient who is terrified of feeling overwhelmed with anxiety. The same problem occurs with patients taking large doses of sedatives who are still unable to sleep.

Mark Olfson and coauthors quantified benzodiazepine use in the United States in 2008 using a large prescription database, and found that 5.2% of adults between 18 and 80 years old were taking these drugs.¹ The percentage increased with age, to 8.7% of those 65-80 years, in whom 31% received long-term prescriptions from a psychiatrist. Benzodiazepine use was twice as prevalent in women, compared with men. This occurs despite peer-reviewed publications and articles in the popular press regarding the risks of long-term benzodiazepine use in the elderly. Fang-Yu Lin and coauthors documented a 2.23-fold higher risk of hip fracture in zolpidem users that increased with age; elderly users had a 21-fold higher incidence of fracture, compared with younger users, and were twice as likely to sustain a fracture than elderly nonusers.²

Rashona Thomas and Edid Ramos-Rivas reviewed the risks of benzodiazepines in older patients with insomnia and document the increase in serious adverse events such as falls, fractures, and cognitive and behavioral changes.³ Many patients have ongoing prescriptions that make discontinuation difficult, given the potential for withdrawal agitation, seizures, insomnia, nightmares and even psychosis.

Greta Bushnell and coauthors pointed to the problem of simultaneous prescribing of a new antidepressant with a benzodiazepine by 10% of doctors initiating antidepressants.⁴ Over 12% of this group of patients continued benzodiazepines long term, even though there was no difference in the response to antidepressant treatment at 6 months. Those with long-term benzodiazepine use were also more likely to have recent prescriptions for opiates.

A Finnish research team found that 34% of middle-aged and 55% of elderly people developed long-term use of benzodiazepines after an initial prescription.⁵ Those who became long-term users were more often older male receivers of social benefits, with psychiatric comorbidities and substance abuse histories.

Kevin Xu and coauthors reviewed a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset from 1999 to 2015 with follow-up on over 5,000 individuals in that period.⁶ They found doubling of all-cause mortality in users of benzodiazepines with or without accompanying use of opiates, a statistically significant increase.

Perhaps most alarming is the increased risk for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis in users of benzodiazepines. Two separate studies (Billoti de Gage and colleagues and Ettcheto and colleagues^7,8) provided reviews of evidence for the relationship between use of benzodiazepines and development of dementia, and repeated warnings about close monitoring of patients and the need for alternative treatments for anxiety and insomnia in the elderly.
 

Be alert to underlying issues

Overburdened primary practitioners faced with complaints about sleep and anxiety understandably turn to medication rather than taking time to discuss the reasons for these problems or to describe nonmedication approaches to relief of symptoms. Even insured patients may have very limited options for “covered” psychiatric consultation, as many competent psychiatrists have moved to a cash-only system. It is easier to renew prescriptions than to counsel patients or refer them, and many primary care practitioners have limited experience with diagnosing causes of anxiety and insomnia, much less alternative medication approaches.

Psychiatrists should be aware of the frequency of underlying mood disorders that include sleep and anxiety as prominent symptoms; in fact, these symptoms are often what motivates patients to pursue treatment. It is critical to obtain not only a personal history of symptoms beginning in childhood up to the present, but also a family history of mood and anxiety problems. Mood dysregulation disorders are highly hereditary and a family history of mania or psychosis should raise concern about the cause of symptoms in one’s patient. A strong personal and/or family history of alcohol abuse and dependence may cover underlying undiagnosed mood dysregulation. Primary care physicians may not recognize mood dysregulation unless a patient is clearly manic or psychotic.

There is a cohort of patients who do well on antidepressant medication, but anorgasmia, fatigue, and emotional blunting are common side effects that affect compliance. When patients have unexpected responses to SSRI medications such as euphoria, agitation, anxiety, insomnia, and more prominent mood swings, primary care physicians may add a benzodiazepine, expecting the problem to abate with time. Unfortunately, this often leads to ongoing use of benzodiazepines, since attempts to stop them causes withdrawal effects that are indistinguishable from the original anxiety symptoms.

Most psychiatrists are aware that some patients need mood stabilization rather than mood elevation to maintain an adequate baseline mood. Lithium, anticonvulsants, and second-generation antipsychotics may be effective without adding antidepressant medication. Managing dosing and side effects requires time for follow-up visits with patients after initiating treatment but leads to more stability and better outcomes.

Benzodiazepines are appropriate and helpful in situations that cause transient anxiety and with patients who have done poorly with other options. Intermittent use is key to avoiding tolerance and inevitable dose increases. Some individuals can take low daily doses that are harmless, though these likely only prevent withdrawal rather than preventing anxiety. The placebo effect of taking a pill is powerful. And some patients take more doses than they admit to. Most practitioners have heard stories about the alprazolam that was accidentally spilled into the sink or the prescription bottle of diazepam that was lost or the lorazepam supply that was stolen by the babysitter.

These concepts are illustrated in case examples below.
 

Case one

Ms. A, a 55-year-old married female business administrator, admitted to using zolpidem at 40 mg per night for the past several months. She began with the typical dose of 10 mg at bedtime prescribed by her internist, but after several weeks, needed an additional 10 mg at 2 a.m. to stay asleep. As weeks passed, she found that she needed an additional 20 mg when she awoke at 2 a.m. Within months, she needed 20 mg to initiate sleep and 20 mg to maintain sleep. She obtained extra zolpidem from her gynecologist and came for consultation when refill requests were refused.

Ms. A had a family history of high anxiety in her mother and depressed mood in multiple paternal relatives, including her father. She had trouble sleeping beginning in adolescence, significant premenstrual dysphoria, and postpartum depression that led to a prescription for sertraline. Instead of feeling better, Ms. A remembers being agitated and unable to sleep, so she stopped it. Ms. A was now perimenopausal, and insomnia was worse. She had gradually increased wine consumption to a bottle of wine each night after work to “settle down.” This allowed her to fall asleep, but she inevitably awoke within 4 hours. Her internist noted an elevation in ALT and asked Ms. A about alcohol consumption. She was alarmed and cut back to one glass of wine per night but again couldn’t sleep. Her internist started zolpidem at that point.

The psychiatrist explained the concepts of tolerance and addiction and a plan to slowly taper off zolpidem while using quetiapine for sleep. She decreased to 20 mg of zolpidem at bedtime with quetiapine 50 mg and was able to stay asleep. After 3 weeks, Ms. A took zolpidem 10 mg at bedtime with quetiapine 75 mg and again, was able to fall asleep and stay asleep. After another 3 weeks, she increased quetiapine to 100 mg and stopped zolpidem without difficulty. This dose of quetiapine has continued to work well without significant side effects.
 

Case two

Ms. B, a 70-year-old married housewife, was referred for help with longstanding anxiety when her primary care doctor recognized that lorazepam, initially helpful at 1 mg twice daily, had required titration to 2 mg three times daily. Ms. B was preoccupied with having lorazepam on hand and never missed a dose. She had little interest in activities beyond her home, rarely socialized, and had fallen twice. She napped for 2 hours each afternoon, and sometimes had trouble staying asleep through the night.

Ms. B was reluctant to talk about her childhood history of hostility and undermining by her mother, who clearly preferred her older brother and was competitive with Ms. B. Her father traveled for work during the week and had little time for her. Ms. B had always seen herself as stupid and unlovable, which interfered with making friends. She attended college for 1 year but dropped out to marry her husband. He was also anxious and had difficulty socializing, but they found reassurance in each other. Their only child, a son in his 40s, was estranged from them, having married a woman who disliked Ms. B. Ms. B felt hopeless about developing a relationship with her grandchildren who were rarely allowed to visit. Despite her initial shame in talking about these painful problems, Ms. B realized that she felt better and scheduled monthly visits to check in.

Ms. B understood the risks of using lorazepam and wanted to stop it but was terrified of becoming anxious again. We set up a very slow tapering schedule that lowered her total dose by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. At the same time, she began escitalopram which was effective at 20 mg. Ms. B noted that she no longer felt anxious upon awakening but was still afraid to miss a dose of lorazepam. As she felt more confident and alert, Ms. B joined a painting class at a local community center and was gratified to find that she was good at working with watercolors. She invited her neighbors to come for dinner and was surprised at how friendly and open they were. Once she had tapered to 1 mg twice daily, Ms. B began walking for exercise as she now had enough energy that it felt good to move around. After 6 months, she was completely off lorazepam, and very grateful to have discovered her capacity to improve her pleasure in life.
 

Case three

Ms. C, a 48-year-old attorney was referred for help with anxiety and distress in the face of separation from her husband who had admitted to an affair after she heard him talking to his girlfriend from their basement. She was unsure whether she wanted to save the marriage or end it and was horrified at the thought of dating. She had never felt especially anxious or depressed and had a supportive circle of close friends. She was uncharacteristically unable to concentrate long enough to consider her options because of anxiety.

A dose of clonazepam 0.5 mg allowed her to stay alert but calm enough to reflect on her feelings. She used it intermittently over several months and maintained regular individual psychotherapy sessions that allowed her to review the situation thoroughly. On her psychiatrist’s recommendation, she contacted a colleague to represent her if she decided to initiate divorce proceedings. She attempted to engage her husband in marital therapy, and his reluctance made it clear to her that she could no longer trust him. Ms. C offered him the option of a dissolution if he was willing to cooperate, or to sue for divorce if not. Once Ms. C regained her confidence and recognized that she would survive this emotionally fraught situation, she no longer needed clonazepam.
 

Summary

Benzodiazepines are particularly ill-suited to scheduled use since the risk of tolerance, escalating doses, and psychological addiction along with pharmacologic tolerance is high. The risks, which include cognitive slowing, falls and fractures, and withdrawal phenomena when abruptly stopped, make this class dangerous for all patients but particularly the elderly. Benzodiazepines are nonetheless useful medications for patients able to use them intermittently, whether on an alternating basis with other medications (for example, quetiapine alternating with clonazepam for chronic insomnia) or because symptoms of anxiety are intermittent. Psychiatrists treating tolerant patients should be familiar with the approach of tapering slowly while introducing more appropriate medications at adequate doses to manage symptoms.

Dr. Kaplan is training and supervising psychoanalyst at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute and volunteer professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. The author reported no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Olfson M et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;72(2):136-42. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1763.

2. Lin FY et al. Sleep. 2014 Apr 1;37(4):673-9. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3566.

3. Thomas R and Ramos-Rivas E. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(6):266-70. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20180513-01.

4. Bushnell GA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;74(7):747-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1273.

5. Taipale H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2019029. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19029.

6. Xu KY et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028557. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28557.

7. Billioti de Gage S et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g5205. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

8. Ettcheto M et al. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020 Jan 8;11:344. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00344.

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.