Commentary

Molar pregnancy is an uncommon but serious condition that affects young women of reproductive age. The diagnosis and management of molar pregnancy is familiar to most gynecologists. However, in the days and weeks following evacuation of molar pregnancy, clinicians face a critical time period in which they must be vigilant for the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). If recognized early and treated appropriately, it almost always can be cured; however, errors or delays in the management of this condition can have catastrophic consequences for patients, including decreasing the likelihood of cure. Here we will review some of the steps and actions that can be taken immediately following the diagnosis of a molar pregnancy to expeditiously identify postmolar GTN and ensure patients are appropriately prepared for further consultation and intervention.

Postmolar GTN includes the diagnoses of invasive mole and choriocarcinoma that contain highly atypical trophoblasts with the capacity for local invasion and metastasis. Typically, the diagnosis is made clinically and not distinguished with histology. While molar pregnancies are a benign condition, invasive moles and choriocarcinoma are malignant conditions in which the molar tissue infiltrates the uterine myometrium, vasculature, and frequently is associated with hematogenous spread with distant metastases. It is a highly chemosensitive disease, and cure with chemotherapy typically is achieved with the ability to preserve fertility if desired even in advanced stage disease.¹

After evacuation of a molar pregnancy, gynecologists should be on alert for the development of postmolar GTN if the following known risk factors are present: a history of a prior GTN diagnosis, complete mole on pathology (as opposed to partial mole), serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels greater than 100,000 mIU/mL, age greater than 40 years, an enlarged uterus or large ovarian theca lutein cysts, and slow to normalize (more than 2 months) hCG. Symptoms for the development of postmolar GTN include persistent vaginal bleeding after evacuation, a persistently enlarged or enlarging uterine size, and adnexal masses. Ultimately, the diagnosis is made through plateaued or rising serum hCG assessments.² (See graphic.)

Following the evacuation of a molar pregnancy, hCG levels should be drawn at the same laboratory every 1-2 weeks until normalization and then three consecutive normal values. Once this has been achieved, hCG levels should be tested once at 3 months and again at 6 months. During this 6 month period, patients should use reliable contraception, ideally, and through oral contraceptive pills that suppress the secretion of pituitary hCG if not contraindicated. Should a woman become pregnant during this 6-month surveillance, it becomes impossible to rule out occult postmolar GTN.

Typically after evacuation of a molar pregnancy, there is rapid fall in hCG levels, but this does not occur when the molar pregnancy has become invasive or is associated with choriocarcinoma. In these cases, after an initial drop in hCG levels, there is an observed rise or plateau in levels (as defined in the accompanying table), and this establishes the diagnosis of postmolar GTN. It is common for hCG to fall in fits and starts, rather than have a smooth, consistent diminution, and this can be worrying for gynecologists; however, provided there is a consistent reduction in values in accordance with the stated definitions, observation can continue.

Another source of confusion and concern is an HCG level that fails to completely normalize during observation, yet reaches a very low level. If this is observed, clinicians should consider the diagnosis of quiescent hCG, pituitary hCG, or phantom hCG.³ These can be difficult to distinguish from postmolar GTN, and consultation with a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the diagnosis and management of these rare tumors is helpful to determine if the persistent low levels in hCG require intervention.

Once a clinician has observed a plateau or rise in hCG levels, a gynecologic examination should be performed because the lower genital tract is a common site for metastatic postmolar GTN. If during this evaluation, a suspicious lesion is identified (typically a blue-black, slightly raised, hemorrhagic-appearing lesion), it should not be biopsied, but rather assumed to be a metastatic site. The vasculature of metastatic sites is extremely fragile, and biopsy or disruption can result in catastrophic hemorrhage, even from very small lesions.

In addition to physical examination, several diagnostic studies should be performed which may expedite the triage and management of the case. A pelvic ultrasound should evaluate the endometrial cavity for a new viable pregnancy, and residual molar tissue; sometimes, myometrial invasion consistent with an invasive mole can be appreciated. Chest x-ray or CT scan should be ordered to evaluate for pulmonary metastatic lesions. Additionally, CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis should be ordered, and if lung metastases are present, brain imaging with either MRI or CT scan also should be obtained. These imaging studies will provide the necessary information to stage the GTN (as metastatic or not).

Treatment for postmolar GTN is determined based on further prognostic categorization (“high risk” or “low risk”) in accordance with the WHO classification, which is derived using several prognostic clinical variables including age, antecedent pregnancy, interval from index pregnancy, pretreatment hCG, largest tumor size, sites and number of metastases, and response to previous chemotherapy.⁴ These assignments are necessary to determine whether single-agent or multiagent chemotherapy should be prescribed.

Laboratory studies are helpful to obtain at this time and include metabolic panels (which can ensure that renal and hepatic function are within normal limits in anticipation of future chemotherapy), and complete blood count ,which can establish viable bone marrow function prior to chemotherapy.

Once postmolar GTN has been diagnosed, it is most appropriate to refer the patient to a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the treatment of these relatively rare malignancies. At that point, the patient will be formally staged, and offered treatment based on these staging results.

Among women with low-risk, nonmetastatic GTN who desire future fertility it is appropriate to offer a repeat dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure rather than immediately proceeding with chemotherapy. Approximately two-thirds of women with low risk disease can avoid chemotherapy with repeat curettage.⁵ Risk factors for needing chemotherapy after repeat D&C include the presence of trophoblastic disease in the pathology specimen and urinary hCG levels greater than 1,500 mIU/mL at the time of curettage. In my experience, many women appreciate this option to potentially avoid toxic chemotherapy.

For women with low-risk, nonmetastatic postmolar GTN who do not desire future fertility, and hope to avoid chemotherapy, hysterectomy also is a reasonable first option. This can be performed via either minimally invasive, laparotomy, or vaginal route. If performing a minimally invasive procedure in the setting of GTN, there should be caution or avoidance of use of a uterine manipulator because the uterine wall typically is soft and prone to perforation, and bleeding can be significant secondary to disruption of the tumor.

If repeat D&C or hysterectomy are adopted instead of chemotherapy, it is important that patients are very closely monitored post operatively to ensure normalization of their hCG levels (as described above). If it fails to normalize, restaging scans and examinations should be performed, and referral for the appropriate chemotherapy regimen should be initiated without delay.

Postmolar GTN is a serious condition that usually can be cured with chemotherapy or, if appropriate, surgery. Gynecologists should be vigilant for the development of postmolar GTN following evacuation of a molar pregnancy, and refer to a gynecologic oncologist when criteria are met to ensure that overtreatment is avoided and essential therapy is ensured.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Aug;8(8):715-24.

2. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1374-91.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):663-72.

4. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1983;692:7-81.

5. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):535-42.

Molar pregnancy is an uncommon but serious condition that affects young women of reproductive age. The diagnosis and management of molar pregnancy is familiar to most gynecologists. However, in the days and weeks following evacuation of molar pregnancy, clinicians face a critical time period in which they must be vigilant for the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). If recognized early and treated appropriately, it almost always can be cured; however, errors or delays in the management of this condition can have catastrophic consequences for patients, including decreasing the likelihood of cure. Here we will review some of the steps and actions that can be taken immediately following the diagnosis of a molar pregnancy to expeditiously identify postmolar GTN and ensure patients are appropriately prepared for further consultation and intervention.

Postmolar GTN includes the diagnoses of invasive mole and choriocarcinoma that contain highly atypical trophoblasts with the capacity for local invasion and metastasis. Typically, the diagnosis is made clinically and not distinguished with histology. While molar pregnancies are a benign condition, invasive moles and choriocarcinoma are malignant conditions in which the molar tissue infiltrates the uterine myometrium, vasculature, and frequently is associated with hematogenous spread with distant metastases. It is a highly chemosensitive disease, and cure with chemotherapy typically is achieved with the ability to preserve fertility if desired even in advanced stage disease.¹

After evacuation of a molar pregnancy, gynecologists should be on alert for the development of postmolar GTN if the following known risk factors are present: a history of a prior GTN diagnosis, complete mole on pathology (as opposed to partial mole), serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels greater than 100,000 mIU/mL, age greater than 40 years, an enlarged uterus or large ovarian theca lutein cysts, and slow to normalize (more than 2 months) hCG. Symptoms for the development of postmolar GTN include persistent vaginal bleeding after evacuation, a persistently enlarged or enlarging uterine size, and adnexal masses. Ultimately, the diagnosis is made through plateaued or rising serum hCG assessments.² (See graphic.)

Following the evacuation of a molar pregnancy, hCG levels should be drawn at the same laboratory every 1-2 weeks until normalization and then three consecutive normal values. Once this has been achieved, hCG levels should be tested once at 3 months and again at 6 months. During this 6 month period, patients should use reliable contraception, ideally, and through oral contraceptive pills that suppress the secretion of pituitary hCG if not contraindicated. Should a woman become pregnant during this 6-month surveillance, it becomes impossible to rule out occult postmolar GTN.

Typically after evacuation of a molar pregnancy, there is rapid fall in hCG levels, but this does not occur when the molar pregnancy has become invasive or is associated with choriocarcinoma. In these cases, after an initial drop in hCG levels, there is an observed rise or plateau in levels (as defined in the accompanying table), and this establishes the diagnosis of postmolar GTN. It is common for hCG to fall in fits and starts, rather than have a smooth, consistent diminution, and this can be worrying for gynecologists; however, provided there is a consistent reduction in values in accordance with the stated definitions, observation can continue.

Another source of confusion and concern is an HCG level that fails to completely normalize during observation, yet reaches a very low level. If this is observed, clinicians should consider the diagnosis of quiescent hCG, pituitary hCG, or phantom hCG.³ These can be difficult to distinguish from postmolar GTN, and consultation with a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the diagnosis and management of these rare tumors is helpful to determine if the persistent low levels in hCG require intervention.

Once a clinician has observed a plateau or rise in hCG levels, a gynecologic examination should be performed because the lower genital tract is a common site for metastatic postmolar GTN. If during this evaluation, a suspicious lesion is identified (typically a blue-black, slightly raised, hemorrhagic-appearing lesion), it should not be biopsied, but rather assumed to be a metastatic site. The vasculature of metastatic sites is extremely fragile, and biopsy or disruption can result in catastrophic hemorrhage, even from very small lesions.

In addition to physical examination, several diagnostic studies should be performed which may expedite the triage and management of the case. A pelvic ultrasound should evaluate the endometrial cavity for a new viable pregnancy, and residual molar tissue; sometimes, myometrial invasion consistent with an invasive mole can be appreciated. Chest x-ray or CT scan should be ordered to evaluate for pulmonary metastatic lesions. Additionally, CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis should be ordered, and if lung metastases are present, brain imaging with either MRI or CT scan also should be obtained. These imaging studies will provide the necessary information to stage the GTN (as metastatic or not).

Treatment for postmolar GTN is determined based on further prognostic categorization (“high risk” or “low risk”) in accordance with the WHO classification, which is derived using several prognostic clinical variables including age, antecedent pregnancy, interval from index pregnancy, pretreatment hCG, largest tumor size, sites and number of metastases, and response to previous chemotherapy.⁴ These assignments are necessary to determine whether single-agent or multiagent chemotherapy should be prescribed.

Laboratory studies are helpful to obtain at this time and include metabolic panels (which can ensure that renal and hepatic function are within normal limits in anticipation of future chemotherapy), and complete blood count ,which can establish viable bone marrow function prior to chemotherapy.

Once postmolar GTN has been diagnosed, it is most appropriate to refer the patient to a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the treatment of these relatively rare malignancies. At that point, the patient will be formally staged, and offered treatment based on these staging results.

Among women with low-risk, nonmetastatic GTN who desire future fertility it is appropriate to offer a repeat dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure rather than immediately proceeding with chemotherapy. Approximately two-thirds of women with low risk disease can avoid chemotherapy with repeat curettage.⁵ Risk factors for needing chemotherapy after repeat D&C include the presence of trophoblastic disease in the pathology specimen and urinary hCG levels greater than 1,500 mIU/mL at the time of curettage. In my experience, many women appreciate this option to potentially avoid toxic chemotherapy.

For women with low-risk, nonmetastatic postmolar GTN who do not desire future fertility, and hope to avoid chemotherapy, hysterectomy also is a reasonable first option. This can be performed via either minimally invasive, laparotomy, or vaginal route. If performing a minimally invasive procedure in the setting of GTN, there should be caution or avoidance of use of a uterine manipulator because the uterine wall typically is soft and prone to perforation, and bleeding can be significant secondary to disruption of the tumor.

If repeat D&C or hysterectomy are adopted instead of chemotherapy, it is important that patients are very closely monitored post operatively to ensure normalization of their hCG levels (as described above). If it fails to normalize, restaging scans and examinations should be performed, and referral for the appropriate chemotherapy regimen should be initiated without delay.

Postmolar GTN is a serious condition that usually can be cured with chemotherapy or, if appropriate, surgery. Gynecologists should be vigilant for the development of postmolar GTN following evacuation of a molar pregnancy, and refer to a gynecologic oncologist when criteria are met to ensure that overtreatment is avoided and essential therapy is ensured.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Aug;8(8):715-24.

2. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1374-91.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):663-72.

4. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1983;692:7-81.

5. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):535-42.

Molar pregnancy is an uncommon but serious condition that affects young women of reproductive age. The diagnosis and management of molar pregnancy is familiar to most gynecologists. However, in the days and weeks following evacuation of molar pregnancy, clinicians face a critical time period in which they must be vigilant for the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). If recognized early and treated appropriately, it almost always can be cured; however, errors or delays in the management of this condition can have catastrophic consequences for patients, including decreasing the likelihood of cure. Here we will review some of the steps and actions that can be taken immediately following the diagnosis of a molar pregnancy to expeditiously identify postmolar GTN and ensure patients are appropriately prepared for further consultation and intervention.

Postmolar GTN includes the diagnoses of invasive mole and choriocarcinoma that contain highly atypical trophoblasts with the capacity for local invasion and metastasis. Typically, the diagnosis is made clinically and not distinguished with histology. While molar pregnancies are a benign condition, invasive moles and choriocarcinoma are malignant conditions in which the molar tissue infiltrates the uterine myometrium, vasculature, and frequently is associated with hematogenous spread with distant metastases. It is a highly chemosensitive disease, and cure with chemotherapy typically is achieved with the ability to preserve fertility if desired even in advanced stage disease.¹

After evacuation of a molar pregnancy, gynecologists should be on alert for the development of postmolar GTN if the following known risk factors are present: a history of a prior GTN diagnosis, complete mole on pathology (as opposed to partial mole), serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels greater than 100,000 mIU/mL, age greater than 40 years, an enlarged uterus or large ovarian theca lutein cysts, and slow to normalize (more than 2 months) hCG. Symptoms for the development of postmolar GTN include persistent vaginal bleeding after evacuation, a persistently enlarged or enlarging uterine size, and adnexal masses. Ultimately, the diagnosis is made through plateaued or rising serum hCG assessments.² (See graphic.)

Following the evacuation of a molar pregnancy, hCG levels should be drawn at the same laboratory every 1-2 weeks until normalization and then three consecutive normal values. Once this has been achieved, hCG levels should be tested once at 3 months and again at 6 months. During this 6 month period, patients should use reliable contraception, ideally, and through oral contraceptive pills that suppress the secretion of pituitary hCG if not contraindicated. Should a woman become pregnant during this 6-month surveillance, it becomes impossible to rule out occult postmolar GTN.

Typically after evacuation of a molar pregnancy, there is rapid fall in hCG levels, but this does not occur when the molar pregnancy has become invasive or is associated with choriocarcinoma. In these cases, after an initial drop in hCG levels, there is an observed rise or plateau in levels (as defined in the accompanying table), and this establishes the diagnosis of postmolar GTN. It is common for hCG to fall in fits and starts, rather than have a smooth, consistent diminution, and this can be worrying for gynecologists; however, provided there is a consistent reduction in values in accordance with the stated definitions, observation can continue.

Another source of confusion and concern is an HCG level that fails to completely normalize during observation, yet reaches a very low level. If this is observed, clinicians should consider the diagnosis of quiescent hCG, pituitary hCG, or phantom hCG.³ These can be difficult to distinguish from postmolar GTN, and consultation with a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the diagnosis and management of these rare tumors is helpful to determine if the persistent low levels in hCG require intervention.

Once a clinician has observed a plateau or rise in hCG levels, a gynecologic examination should be performed because the lower genital tract is a common site for metastatic postmolar GTN. If during this evaluation, a suspicious lesion is identified (typically a blue-black, slightly raised, hemorrhagic-appearing lesion), it should not be biopsied, but rather assumed to be a metastatic site. The vasculature of metastatic sites is extremely fragile, and biopsy or disruption can result in catastrophic hemorrhage, even from very small lesions.

In addition to physical examination, several diagnostic studies should be performed which may expedite the triage and management of the case. A pelvic ultrasound should evaluate the endometrial cavity for a new viable pregnancy, and residual molar tissue; sometimes, myometrial invasion consistent with an invasive mole can be appreciated. Chest x-ray or CT scan should be ordered to evaluate for pulmonary metastatic lesions. Additionally, CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis should be ordered, and if lung metastases are present, brain imaging with either MRI or CT scan also should be obtained. These imaging studies will provide the necessary information to stage the GTN (as metastatic or not).

Treatment for postmolar GTN is determined based on further prognostic categorization (“high risk” or “low risk”) in accordance with the WHO classification, which is derived using several prognostic clinical variables including age, antecedent pregnancy, interval from index pregnancy, pretreatment hCG, largest tumor size, sites and number of metastases, and response to previous chemotherapy.⁴ These assignments are necessary to determine whether single-agent or multiagent chemotherapy should be prescribed.

Laboratory studies are helpful to obtain at this time and include metabolic panels (which can ensure that renal and hepatic function are within normal limits in anticipation of future chemotherapy), and complete blood count ,which can establish viable bone marrow function prior to chemotherapy.

Once postmolar GTN has been diagnosed, it is most appropriate to refer the patient to a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the treatment of these relatively rare malignancies. At that point, the patient will be formally staged, and offered treatment based on these staging results.

Among women with low-risk, nonmetastatic GTN who desire future fertility it is appropriate to offer a repeat dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure rather than immediately proceeding with chemotherapy. Approximately two-thirds of women with low risk disease can avoid chemotherapy with repeat curettage.⁵ Risk factors for needing chemotherapy after repeat D&C include the presence of trophoblastic disease in the pathology specimen and urinary hCG levels greater than 1,500 mIU/mL at the time of curettage. In my experience, many women appreciate this option to potentially avoid toxic chemotherapy.

For women with low-risk, nonmetastatic postmolar GTN who do not desire future fertility, and hope to avoid chemotherapy, hysterectomy also is a reasonable first option. This can be performed via either minimally invasive, laparotomy, or vaginal route. If performing a minimally invasive procedure in the setting of GTN, there should be caution or avoidance of use of a uterine manipulator because the uterine wall typically is soft and prone to perforation, and bleeding can be significant secondary to disruption of the tumor.

If repeat D&C or hysterectomy are adopted instead of chemotherapy, it is important that patients are very closely monitored post operatively to ensure normalization of their hCG levels (as described above). If it fails to normalize, restaging scans and examinations should be performed, and referral for the appropriate chemotherapy regimen should be initiated without delay.

Postmolar GTN is a serious condition that usually can be cured with chemotherapy or, if appropriate, surgery. Gynecologists should be vigilant for the development of postmolar GTN following evacuation of a molar pregnancy, and refer to a gynecologic oncologist when criteria are met to ensure that overtreatment is avoided and essential therapy is ensured.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Aug;8(8):715-24.

2. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1374-91.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):663-72.

4. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1983;692:7-81.

5. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):535-42.

Through the years, I have had the privilege of educating clinicians about scientific advances in diabetes care. Prior to displaying the first slide of my presentation, I ask the audience, “How many of you have seen a ‘noncompliant’ patient with diabetes within the past month?” Without fail, 99% of the attendees will raise their hand and start laughing, as if to say, “Well, of course they’re noncompliant. They just don’t get it! How incompetent can these people be?”

Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a compliment will do their best to remain adherent to their medication regimen.

Blaming patients for failing to achieve metabolic control is inappropriate and misguided. How many physicians would be able or willing to monitor their blood glucose levels 4 times a day? Based on the premeal glucose level, how many physicians know how much insulin to inject in order to keep the postprandial excursions below 180 mg/dL? How many would remember to take 8 other medications daily without missing a dose? And how many physicians exercise daily; have actually looked at their feet in the past month; and have gained no weight in the past year?

Diabetes self-management is time-­consuming and difficult for many patients, especially those with health illiteracy, ­financial restraints, or social barriers. Any patient who presents to the doctor is, in fact, “compliant.” These individuals expect to receive the safest and most effective treatments for their diabetes while learning as much as possible about lifestyle and behavioral interventions.

I challenge each of you to ask your patients: “What concerns you the most about having diabetes?” Initially, patients will express guilt and remorse about having diabetes. They will hang their heads in shame, admit to not going to the gym as often as they could, and promise to eat smaller portions. They will then look you in the eye and say, “I am worried about losing my eye, my leg, and my kidney to this life-threatening disease. I’m scared I won’t be able to see my daughter walk down the aisle at her wedding or my son graduate from college.”

These patients are terrified because they are unfamiliar with the advances in clinical science that aid our ability to improve the lives of all patients with diabetes. After hearing patients’ concerns about dying prematurely or losing an extremity to diabetes, I assure them that, “Nothing is going to happen to you on my watch. You are safe with me, and I will always have your back.” This level of trust is vitally important to the patient as well as to the treating physician. We all want our patients to achieve treatment success, just as any teacher would want their students to excel and graduate to the next grade level. Diabetes cannot be cured, yet we, as physicians, are able to heal with reassurance and expert guidance.

So, how do we help our patients achieve better adherence to their chronic disease state interventions? Here are 9 techniques that I have learned in my years helping patients manage their diabetes (all of which are more broadly applicable to any chronic disease state):

1. Explain the disease state you are comanaging with the patient to the best of your ability. The more the patient understands, the easier your job as the “drug police” becomes.
2. Remind the patient that he/she is the captain of the disease management team. You, the physician, serve as the personal coach. You can help the patient win the game, but he/she is ultimately responsible for achieving successful metabolic targets.
3. Explain the risks, benefits, and any expected adverse effects that are likely to occur. Do this prior to initiating any medication.
4. Discuss when metabolic change might be expected after initiating a given medication. Patients who observe rapid improvement in their glucose levels will be encouraged to adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen.
5. Make certain that any and all screening tests are performed prior to initiating a medication. For example, renal function should be assessed prior to beginning most diabetes medications.
6. Use shared decision-making to negotiate acceptable metabolic targets with each patient. Discuss the urgency and importance of achieving these goals.
7. Assess the A1C reduction from baseline at 4 weeks after therapy initiation, rather than at 3 months. About 50% of the total A1C is reflective of the preceding 4 weeks of treatment.¹ Thus, if the baseline A1C drops from 8.2% to 7.8%, the patient is moving in the right direction. However, if the A1C increases from 8.2% to 8.5%, the patient is not taking the prescribed medications.
8. Recommend that the patient use a continuous glucose monitor; this newer technology is now readily available for patients who are covered by private insurance or Medicare. These devices allow patients to observe their glucose levels every 5 minutes of every day without fingersticks and actually cost less than self-­monitoring one’s blood glucose.
9. Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a powerful compliment, such as “I am so very proud of your efforts at improving your diabetes control,” will do their absolute best to remain adherent to their prescribed medication regimen. The response might be different if a patient is told, “Once again, your blood sugars are too high. At this rate, you are probably going to die, just like your father did 20 years ago. Now come back in 6 months and show me what you’re ­really made of!”

With more than 30 million Americans living with diabetes and another 84 million with prediabetes, the burden of preventive and intensive care lies squarely with family physicians.² Rather than complain about our patients’ lack of metabolic control, we should provide them with the knowledge, skills, tools, and encouragement that they need to become successful diabetes self-managers.

Through the years, I have had the privilege of educating clinicians about scientific advances in diabetes care. Prior to displaying the first slide of my presentation, I ask the audience, “How many of you have seen a ‘noncompliant’ patient with diabetes within the past month?” Without fail, 99% of the attendees will raise their hand and start laughing, as if to say, “Well, of course they’re noncompliant. They just don’t get it! How incompetent can these people be?”

Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a compliment will do their best to remain adherent to their medication regimen.

Blaming patients for failing to achieve metabolic control is inappropriate and misguided. How many physicians would be able or willing to monitor their blood glucose levels 4 times a day? Based on the premeal glucose level, how many physicians know how much insulin to inject in order to keep the postprandial excursions below 180 mg/dL? How many would remember to take 8 other medications daily without missing a dose? And how many physicians exercise daily; have actually looked at their feet in the past month; and have gained no weight in the past year?

Diabetes self-management is time-­consuming and difficult for many patients, especially those with health illiteracy, ­financial restraints, or social barriers. Any patient who presents to the doctor is, in fact, “compliant.” These individuals expect to receive the safest and most effective treatments for their diabetes while learning as much as possible about lifestyle and behavioral interventions.

I challenge each of you to ask your patients: “What concerns you the most about having diabetes?” Initially, patients will express guilt and remorse about having diabetes. They will hang their heads in shame, admit to not going to the gym as often as they could, and promise to eat smaller portions. They will then look you in the eye and say, “I am worried about losing my eye, my leg, and my kidney to this life-threatening disease. I’m scared I won’t be able to see my daughter walk down the aisle at her wedding or my son graduate from college.”

These patients are terrified because they are unfamiliar with the advances in clinical science that aid our ability to improve the lives of all patients with diabetes. After hearing patients’ concerns about dying prematurely or losing an extremity to diabetes, I assure them that, “Nothing is going to happen to you on my watch. You are safe with me, and I will always have your back.” This level of trust is vitally important to the patient as well as to the treating physician. We all want our patients to achieve treatment success, just as any teacher would want their students to excel and graduate to the next grade level. Diabetes cannot be cured, yet we, as physicians, are able to heal with reassurance and expert guidance.

So, how do we help our patients achieve better adherence to their chronic disease state interventions? Here are 9 techniques that I have learned in my years helping patients manage their diabetes (all of which are more broadly applicable to any chronic disease state):

1. Explain the disease state you are comanaging with the patient to the best of your ability. The more the patient understands, the easier your job as the “drug police” becomes.
2. Remind the patient that he/she is the captain of the disease management team. You, the physician, serve as the personal coach. You can help the patient win the game, but he/she is ultimately responsible for achieving successful metabolic targets.
3. Explain the risks, benefits, and any expected adverse effects that are likely to occur. Do this prior to initiating any medication.
4. Discuss when metabolic change might be expected after initiating a given medication. Patients who observe rapid improvement in their glucose levels will be encouraged to adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen.
5. Make certain that any and all screening tests are performed prior to initiating a medication. For example, renal function should be assessed prior to beginning most diabetes medications.
6. Use shared decision-making to negotiate acceptable metabolic targets with each patient. Discuss the urgency and importance of achieving these goals.
7. Assess the A1C reduction from baseline at 4 weeks after therapy initiation, rather than at 3 months. About 50% of the total A1C is reflective of the preceding 4 weeks of treatment.¹ Thus, if the baseline A1C drops from 8.2% to 7.8%, the patient is moving in the right direction. However, if the A1C increases from 8.2% to 8.5%, the patient is not taking the prescribed medications.
8. Recommend that the patient use a continuous glucose monitor; this newer technology is now readily available for patients who are covered by private insurance or Medicare. These devices allow patients to observe their glucose levels every 5 minutes of every day without fingersticks and actually cost less than self-­monitoring one’s blood glucose.
9. Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a powerful compliment, such as “I am so very proud of your efforts at improving your diabetes control,” will do their absolute best to remain adherent to their prescribed medication regimen. The response might be different if a patient is told, “Once again, your blood sugars are too high. At this rate, you are probably going to die, just like your father did 20 years ago. Now come back in 6 months and show me what you’re ­really made of!”

With more than 30 million Americans living with diabetes and another 84 million with prediabetes, the burden of preventive and intensive care lies squarely with family physicians.² Rather than complain about our patients’ lack of metabolic control, we should provide them with the knowledge, skills, tools, and encouragement that they need to become successful diabetes self-managers.

Through the years, I have had the privilege of educating clinicians about scientific advances in diabetes care. Prior to displaying the first slide of my presentation, I ask the audience, “How many of you have seen a ‘noncompliant’ patient with diabetes within the past month?” Without fail, 99% of the attendees will raise their hand and start laughing, as if to say, “Well, of course they’re noncompliant. They just don’t get it! How incompetent can these people be?”

Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a compliment will do their best to remain adherent to their medication regimen.

Blaming patients for failing to achieve metabolic control is inappropriate and misguided. How many physicians would be able or willing to monitor their blood glucose levels 4 times a day? Based on the premeal glucose level, how many physicians know how much insulin to inject in order to keep the postprandial excursions below 180 mg/dL? How many would remember to take 8 other medications daily without missing a dose? And how many physicians exercise daily; have actually looked at their feet in the past month; and have gained no weight in the past year?

Diabetes self-management is time-­consuming and difficult for many patients, especially those with health illiteracy, ­financial restraints, or social barriers. Any patient who presents to the doctor is, in fact, “compliant.” These individuals expect to receive the safest and most effective treatments for their diabetes while learning as much as possible about lifestyle and behavioral interventions.

I challenge each of you to ask your patients: “What concerns you the most about having diabetes?” Initially, patients will express guilt and remorse about having diabetes. They will hang their heads in shame, admit to not going to the gym as often as they could, and promise to eat smaller portions. They will then look you in the eye and say, “I am worried about losing my eye, my leg, and my kidney to this life-threatening disease. I’m scared I won’t be able to see my daughter walk down the aisle at her wedding or my son graduate from college.”

These patients are terrified because they are unfamiliar with the advances in clinical science that aid our ability to improve the lives of all patients with diabetes. After hearing patients’ concerns about dying prematurely or losing an extremity to diabetes, I assure them that, “Nothing is going to happen to you on my watch. You are safe with me, and I will always have your back.” This level of trust is vitally important to the patient as well as to the treating physician. We all want our patients to achieve treatment success, just as any teacher would want their students to excel and graduate to the next grade level. Diabetes cannot be cured, yet we, as physicians, are able to heal with reassurance and expert guidance.

So, how do we help our patients achieve better adherence to their chronic disease state interventions? Here are 9 techniques that I have learned in my years helping patients manage their diabetes (all of which are more broadly applicable to any chronic disease state):

1. Explain the disease state you are comanaging with the patient to the best of your ability. The more the patient understands, the easier your job as the “drug police” becomes.
2. Remind the patient that he/she is the captain of the disease management team. You, the physician, serve as the personal coach. You can help the patient win the game, but he/she is ultimately responsible for achieving successful metabolic targets.
3. Explain the risks, benefits, and any expected adverse effects that are likely to occur. Do this prior to initiating any medication.
4. Discuss when metabolic change might be expected after initiating a given medication. Patients who observe rapid improvement in their glucose levels will be encouraged to adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen.
5. Make certain that any and all screening tests are performed prior to initiating a medication. For example, renal function should be assessed prior to beginning most diabetes medications.
6. Use shared decision-making to negotiate acceptable metabolic targets with each patient. Discuss the urgency and importance of achieving these goals.
7. Assess the A1C reduction from baseline at 4 weeks after therapy initiation, rather than at 3 months. About 50% of the total A1C is reflective of the preceding 4 weeks of treatment.¹ Thus, if the baseline A1C drops from 8.2% to 7.8%, the patient is moving in the right direction. However, if the A1C increases from 8.2% to 8.5%, the patient is not taking the prescribed medications.
8. Recommend that the patient use a continuous glucose monitor; this newer technology is now readily available for patients who are covered by private insurance or Medicare. These devices allow patients to observe their glucose levels every 5 minutes of every day without fingersticks and actually cost less than self-­monitoring one’s blood glucose.
9. Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a powerful compliment, such as “I am so very proud of your efforts at improving your diabetes control,” will do their absolute best to remain adherent to their prescribed medication regimen. The response might be different if a patient is told, “Once again, your blood sugars are too high. At this rate, you are probably going to die, just like your father did 20 years ago. Now come back in 6 months and show me what you’re ­really made of!”

With more than 30 million Americans living with diabetes and another 84 million with prediabetes, the burden of preventive and intensive care lies squarely with family physicians.² Rather than complain about our patients’ lack of metabolic control, we should provide them with the knowledge, skills, tools, and encouragement that they need to become successful diabetes self-managers.

A Washington Post article on depression after miscarriage is a reminder that, although couples can suffer deeply from such a loss, there still are ways to provide them with meaningful support (“After miscarriage, I was rocked by depression. Like many other women, I didn’t get follow-up care for this loss,” by Katie C. Reilly, Nov 30, 2019).

Carlo107/Getty Images

Psychiatrists who focus on reproductive psychiatry and collaborative care are trying to change the current therapeutic landscape and improve practitioner awareness and treatment. Ob.gyns. managing patients who have experienced reproductive loss, especially early-term loss, may not immediately refer couples to a therapist or psychiatrist, but we can change this. Practitioners who focus on reproductive health – both physical and mental – are trying to better understand such couples’ experiences, increase their access to care, develop preventative care strategies, and improve provider education.

At the outset, providers who treat patients who have experienced a perinatal loss must recognize that not all individuals will feel that a loss is tragic. Instead, patient reactions occur along a spectrum, and there is no “correct” way to process a loss. A couple’s reaction may depend on a variety of factors, including how late or early in pregnancy the loss occurs, whether the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, and what other psychosocial stressors, such as unstable housing, limited income, and few social supports, may exist. Not every patient experiencing grief, even profoundly, will shed tears; we need to be open to all potential reactions and be mindful when a person may need additional support.

According to the Washington Post article, even though 50% of miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities, women still feel ultimately responsible for the loss. As a society we are bombarded with “experts” in the media telling us the best way, the right way, the healthiest way to live. This barrage of advice distorts our views of what it really means to be a good parent and subtly conveys the idea that mothers are solely responsible for any bad pregnancy outcomes. I remember being fearful of causing unintentional harm to my unborn baby during my own pregnancy. What if I accidentally ate something that would affect her development? Is exposure to second-hand smoke as I walk down the street harming her? How bad would it be if I just had one cup of coffee? My doubts caused quite a bit of distress for me, which is a mild form of the distress I see when counseling couples after their miscarriages.

The article’s author also expressed concern about the emotional sterility of the environment in which miscarriages usually occur: a hospital ED. EDs are designed to promote a level of detachment and to quell any stress for the clinicians so that they can calmly handle unexpected health crises. EDs are not primarily designed to provide patients with emotional support, nor should they be. However, we still can make some improvements to existing ED design to better address couples’ emotional needs. For example, some EDs have placed mental health clinicians on staff, others call patients post discharge to address concerns, and some EDs even provide patients access to mental health trauma teams. Such services are not found in all EDs, and even those that exist may just scratch the surface of what is needed, but they are a step in the right direction. Providing this level of auxiliary care directly from the ED increases patients’ ability to access mental health support in the place where miscarriages are most likely to be first diagnosed and managed.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists already is trying to fill in the missing pieces when it comes to identifying mood symptoms following miscarriage. One of the key recommendations from the May 2018 Committee Opinion on Redefining the Postpartum Visit is that every woman who has experienced a miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death should receive follow-up care. Mental health is a suggested component of the postpartum care plan. Some outpatient ob.gyn. practices and inpatient units are using screening tools to identify postpartum depression. For example, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale can be utilized following a miscarriage to help providers identify symptoms of depression and anxiety.

However, advancements in screening practices are only the tip of the iceberg of helping patients following miscarriage. A major question is how do we provide treatment? The trend in psychiatry over the past decade has been toward collaborative care, models that embed psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians in ob.gyn. practices to help guide the diagnosis and treatment of mental health problems. Some psychiatrists practice a co-located model in which they see patients alongside their ob.gyn. colleagues, whereas other psychiatrists treat a larger number of patients by using chart reviews for medication management while relying on behavioral health care managers for counseling and monitoring. Using this model of mental health care, more patients have access to services that are provided in a location familiar to them.

Another step in the right direction is the October 2019 launch of The National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRP), which provides free educational material for psychiatry faculty and residents to enhance education on topics related to reproductive psychiatry, including miscarriage, loss, and development of trauma disorders. NCRP aspires to develop educational materials for ob.gyn. residents.

In the past we may have missed the mark in recognizing and treating the trauma that prenatal loss can cause, but we are trying to improve our approaches. More and more couples are sharing their experiences and advocating for themselves and others, often creating change in medical practice, and doctors are starting to listen. As any clinician knows, changes to standards of care can take several years to disseminate into general practice, but this gap between knowledge and treatment is now in the forefront of our minds. I am hopeful that we will continue to make advances and provide better care to our patients who have endured the loss of a pregnancy.
 

Dr. Latorre is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. She has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

A Washington Post article on depression after miscarriage is a reminder that, although couples can suffer deeply from such a loss, there still are ways to provide them with meaningful support (“After miscarriage, I was rocked by depression. Like many other women, I didn’t get follow-up care for this loss,” by Katie C. Reilly, Nov 30, 2019).

Carlo107/Getty Images

Psychiatrists who focus on reproductive psychiatry and collaborative care are trying to change the current therapeutic landscape and improve practitioner awareness and treatment. Ob.gyns. managing patients who have experienced reproductive loss, especially early-term loss, may not immediately refer couples to a therapist or psychiatrist, but we can change this. Practitioners who focus on reproductive health – both physical and mental – are trying to better understand such couples’ experiences, increase their access to care, develop preventative care strategies, and improve provider education.

At the outset, providers who treat patients who have experienced a perinatal loss must recognize that not all individuals will feel that a loss is tragic. Instead, patient reactions occur along a spectrum, and there is no “correct” way to process a loss. A couple’s reaction may depend on a variety of factors, including how late or early in pregnancy the loss occurs, whether the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, and what other psychosocial stressors, such as unstable housing, limited income, and few social supports, may exist. Not every patient experiencing grief, even profoundly, will shed tears; we need to be open to all potential reactions and be mindful when a person may need additional support.

According to the Washington Post article, even though 50% of miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities, women still feel ultimately responsible for the loss. As a society we are bombarded with “experts” in the media telling us the best way, the right way, the healthiest way to live. This barrage of advice distorts our views of what it really means to be a good parent and subtly conveys the idea that mothers are solely responsible for any bad pregnancy outcomes. I remember being fearful of causing unintentional harm to my unborn baby during my own pregnancy. What if I accidentally ate something that would affect her development? Is exposure to second-hand smoke as I walk down the street harming her? How bad would it be if I just had one cup of coffee? My doubts caused quite a bit of distress for me, which is a mild form of the distress I see when counseling couples after their miscarriages.

The article’s author also expressed concern about the emotional sterility of the environment in which miscarriages usually occur: a hospital ED. EDs are designed to promote a level of detachment and to quell any stress for the clinicians so that they can calmly handle unexpected health crises. EDs are not primarily designed to provide patients with emotional support, nor should they be. However, we still can make some improvements to existing ED design to better address couples’ emotional needs. For example, some EDs have placed mental health clinicians on staff, others call patients post discharge to address concerns, and some EDs even provide patients access to mental health trauma teams. Such services are not found in all EDs, and even those that exist may just scratch the surface of what is needed, but they are a step in the right direction. Providing this level of auxiliary care directly from the ED increases patients’ ability to access mental health support in the place where miscarriages are most likely to be first diagnosed and managed.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists already is trying to fill in the missing pieces when it comes to identifying mood symptoms following miscarriage. One of the key recommendations from the May 2018 Committee Opinion on Redefining the Postpartum Visit is that every woman who has experienced a miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death should receive follow-up care. Mental health is a suggested component of the postpartum care plan. Some outpatient ob.gyn. practices and inpatient units are using screening tools to identify postpartum depression. For example, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale can be utilized following a miscarriage to help providers identify symptoms of depression and anxiety.

However, advancements in screening practices are only the tip of the iceberg of helping patients following miscarriage. A major question is how do we provide treatment? The trend in psychiatry over the past decade has been toward collaborative care, models that embed psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians in ob.gyn. practices to help guide the diagnosis and treatment of mental health problems. Some psychiatrists practice a co-located model in which they see patients alongside their ob.gyn. colleagues, whereas other psychiatrists treat a larger number of patients by using chart reviews for medication management while relying on behavioral health care managers for counseling and monitoring. Using this model of mental health care, more patients have access to services that are provided in a location familiar to them.

Another step in the right direction is the October 2019 launch of The National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRP), which provides free educational material for psychiatry faculty and residents to enhance education on topics related to reproductive psychiatry, including miscarriage, loss, and development of trauma disorders. NCRP aspires to develop educational materials for ob.gyn. residents.

In the past we may have missed the mark in recognizing and treating the trauma that prenatal loss can cause, but we are trying to improve our approaches. More and more couples are sharing their experiences and advocating for themselves and others, often creating change in medical practice, and doctors are starting to listen. As any clinician knows, changes to standards of care can take several years to disseminate into general practice, but this gap between knowledge and treatment is now in the forefront of our minds. I am hopeful that we will continue to make advances and provide better care to our patients who have endured the loss of a pregnancy.
 

Dr. Latorre is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. She has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

A Washington Post article on depression after miscarriage is a reminder that, although couples can suffer deeply from such a loss, there still are ways to provide them with meaningful support (“After miscarriage, I was rocked by depression. Like many other women, I didn’t get follow-up care for this loss,” by Katie C. Reilly, Nov 30, 2019).

Carlo107/Getty Images

Psychiatrists who focus on reproductive psychiatry and collaborative care are trying to change the current therapeutic landscape and improve practitioner awareness and treatment. Ob.gyns. managing patients who have experienced reproductive loss, especially early-term loss, may not immediately refer couples to a therapist or psychiatrist, but we can change this. Practitioners who focus on reproductive health – both physical and mental – are trying to better understand such couples’ experiences, increase their access to care, develop preventative care strategies, and improve provider education.

At the outset, providers who treat patients who have experienced a perinatal loss must recognize that not all individuals will feel that a loss is tragic. Instead, patient reactions occur along a spectrum, and there is no “correct” way to process a loss. A couple’s reaction may depend on a variety of factors, including how late or early in pregnancy the loss occurs, whether the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, and what other psychosocial stressors, such as unstable housing, limited income, and few social supports, may exist. Not every patient experiencing grief, even profoundly, will shed tears; we need to be open to all potential reactions and be mindful when a person may need additional support.

According to the Washington Post article, even though 50% of miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities, women still feel ultimately responsible for the loss. As a society we are bombarded with “experts” in the media telling us the best way, the right way, the healthiest way to live. This barrage of advice distorts our views of what it really means to be a good parent and subtly conveys the idea that mothers are solely responsible for any bad pregnancy outcomes. I remember being fearful of causing unintentional harm to my unborn baby during my own pregnancy. What if I accidentally ate something that would affect her development? Is exposure to second-hand smoke as I walk down the street harming her? How bad would it be if I just had one cup of coffee? My doubts caused quite a bit of distress for me, which is a mild form of the distress I see when counseling couples after their miscarriages.

The article’s author also expressed concern about the emotional sterility of the environment in which miscarriages usually occur: a hospital ED. EDs are designed to promote a level of detachment and to quell any stress for the clinicians so that they can calmly handle unexpected health crises. EDs are not primarily designed to provide patients with emotional support, nor should they be. However, we still can make some improvements to existing ED design to better address couples’ emotional needs. For example, some EDs have placed mental health clinicians on staff, others call patients post discharge to address concerns, and some EDs even provide patients access to mental health trauma teams. Such services are not found in all EDs, and even those that exist may just scratch the surface of what is needed, but they are a step in the right direction. Providing this level of auxiliary care directly from the ED increases patients’ ability to access mental health support in the place where miscarriages are most likely to be first diagnosed and managed.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists already is trying to fill in the missing pieces when it comes to identifying mood symptoms following miscarriage. One of the key recommendations from the May 2018 Committee Opinion on Redefining the Postpartum Visit is that every woman who has experienced a miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death should receive follow-up care. Mental health is a suggested component of the postpartum care plan. Some outpatient ob.gyn. practices and inpatient units are using screening tools to identify postpartum depression. For example, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale can be utilized following a miscarriage to help providers identify symptoms of depression and anxiety.

However, advancements in screening practices are only the tip of the iceberg of helping patients following miscarriage. A major question is how do we provide treatment? The trend in psychiatry over the past decade has been toward collaborative care, models that embed psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians in ob.gyn. practices to help guide the diagnosis and treatment of mental health problems. Some psychiatrists practice a co-located model in which they see patients alongside their ob.gyn. colleagues, whereas other psychiatrists treat a larger number of patients by using chart reviews for medication management while relying on behavioral health care managers for counseling and monitoring. Using this model of mental health care, more patients have access to services that are provided in a location familiar to them.

Another step in the right direction is the October 2019 launch of The National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry (NCRP), which provides free educational material for psychiatry faculty and residents to enhance education on topics related to reproductive psychiatry, including miscarriage, loss, and development of trauma disorders. NCRP aspires to develop educational materials for ob.gyn. residents.

In the past we may have missed the mark in recognizing and treating the trauma that prenatal loss can cause, but we are trying to improve our approaches. More and more couples are sharing their experiences and advocating for themselves and others, often creating change in medical practice, and doctors are starting to listen. As any clinician knows, changes to standards of care can take several years to disseminate into general practice, but this gap between knowledge and treatment is now in the forefront of our minds. I am hopeful that we will continue to make advances and provide better care to our patients who have endured the loss of a pregnancy.
 

Dr. Latorre is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. She has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

With recent developments in many U.S. states regarding legalization of cannabis for medicinal or recreational use, there is an emerging need to better understand the risks or safety of its use during pregnancy and lactation. National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.¹

Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.^2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.⁴

With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.^5,6

A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.^7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.

Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.^12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.

There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.¹⁶

There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.^17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.

Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.

At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.

In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
 

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.

2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.

3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.

4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.

5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.

6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.

7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.

8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.

9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.

10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.

11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.

12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.

13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.

15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.

16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.

17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.

18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.

With recent developments in many U.S. states regarding legalization of cannabis for medicinal or recreational use, there is an emerging need to better understand the risks or safety of its use during pregnancy and lactation. National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.¹

Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.^2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.⁴

With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.^5,6

A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.^7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.

Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.^12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.

There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.¹⁶

There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.^17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.

Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.

At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.

In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
 

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.

2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.

3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.

4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.

5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.

6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.

7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.

8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.

9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.

10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.

11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.

12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.

13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.

15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.

16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.

17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.

18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.

With recent developments in many U.S. states regarding legalization of cannabis for medicinal or recreational use, there is an emerging need to better understand the risks or safety of its use during pregnancy and lactation. National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.¹

Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.^2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.⁴

With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.^5,6

A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.^7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.

Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.^12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.

There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.¹⁶

There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.^17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.

Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.

At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.

In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
 

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.

References

1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.

2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.

3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.

4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.

5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.

6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.

7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.

8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.

9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.

10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.

11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.

12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.

13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.

15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.

16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.

17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.

18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.

At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.

It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.

Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.

Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.

The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.

We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.

Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.

Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”

Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.

I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.

In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.

The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”

If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.

If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.

Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.

Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, I don’t believe we have a single easy answer as to why suicide rates are rising or a singular response that will stop this tragic phenomena. The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.

It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.

Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.

Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.

The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.

We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.

Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.

Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”

Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.

I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.

In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.

The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”

If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.

If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.

Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.

Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, I don’t believe we have a single easy answer as to why suicide rates are rising or a singular response that will stop this tragic phenomena. The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

At every swipe through my social media feeds, I’m greeted with another topic that has advocates clustered at the extremes. People align, and they align quickly in our strangely polarized world in which anyone who might sit in the middle lies low.

It seems we’re divided: On the left you are a CNN fan or you’re one of those soulless monsters who tunes in to Fox News. You’re pro-life or you’re a baby killer, advocating for late-term abortions or even the execution of live infants. When it comes to firearm regulation, one side says you’re a threat to the Constitution, while the other says that those opposed are responsible for the death of every person who was ever the victim of a discharged firearm. And those who feel strongly about a given topic often justify their attacks on those who disagree. Psychiatry is no stranger to this thinking, and we are the only medical specialty with organized “antipsychiatry” groups who oppose our work. I have been a bit surprised, however, that the topic of suicide prevention is one that has us divided within our own specialty.

Amy Barnhorst, MD, is a psychiatrist at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “The empty promise of suicide prevention: Many of the problems that lead people to kill themselves cannot be fixed with a little serotonin,” an op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times on April 26, 2019. Dr. Barnhorst began her essay with the story of a patient who was hospitalized after a relative realized she was planning her suicide. That story had an ending that psychiatrists relish: A person with previously unrecognized and untreated bipolar disorder received care, including medication, and got better. This suicide was preventable, a life was saved, and this story followed a model we all hope is being replicated over and over.

Dr. Barnhorst went on to say that this was an outlier in her career, that most of the suicidal patients she sees are impoverished, homeless, addicted, and she wrote about how little the treatment setting has to offer: The idea that a pill would fix these problems is almost laughable. She suggests that there is more to suicide prevention than identifying prospective patients and getting them acute psychiatric care.

The decision to stop living is one that people arrive at by different paths, some over months, but many in a matter of minutes. Those people won’t be intercepted by the mental health system. We certainly need more psychiatric services and more research into better, faster-acting treatments for severe depression and suicidal thoughts, but that will never be enough.

We need to address the root causes of our nation’s suicide problem – poverty, homelessness, and the accompanying exposure to trauma, crime, and drugs. That means better alcohol and drug treatment, family counseling, low-income housing resources, job training, and individual therapy. And for those at risk who still slip past all the checkpoints, we need to make sure they don’t have access to guns and lethal medications.

Psychological autopsies done after suicides have indicated that more than 90% of people who die from suicide suffered from a mental illness, yet 54% of those who ended their own lives had never received a psychiatric diagnosis. There is a hopefulness that, if only we had more – more services, more therapy, more medication – then we could prevent suicide. Unfortunately, this line of thinking, with a “Zero Suicide” initiative, points a finger at those who survive: Suicide is preventable, so someone is to blame, if not a family member for missing the warning signs then the clinician who offered treatment that wasn’t good enough.

Along this line, the New York Times printed another opinion piece on Jan. 6 by Richard A. Friedman, MD, titled, “Why are young Americans killing themselves?” Dr. Friedman’s conclusion was more along the psychiatrist party line: “The good news is that we don’t have to wait for all the answers to know what to do. We know that various psychotherapies and medication are highly effective in treating depression. We just need to do a better job of identifying, reaching out to and providing resources for at-risk youths.”

Dr. Friedman goes on to propose universal screening at school, among other measures to identify those at risk. It is no surprise that Dr. Friedman’s article had more than 1,700 comments before commenting was closed by the Times. I have written about the pros and cons of screening adolescents for depression in a primary care setting, so putting the responsibility of identifying suicidal teenagers on school teachers seems like an ominous responsibility to add to a teacher’s obligations.

I did not read Dr. Barnhorst’s earlier op-ed piece as a condemnation of psychiatric care, but rather as a call to action and a reality check on the idea that psychiatry is the only answer to our suicide epidemic. More people than ever get treatment – from psychiatrists, from primary care doctors, from nonphysician prescribing clinicians, and from so many varieties of psychotherapists, and yet our suicide rates continue to rise.

In a post on the Psychology Today website, Sara Gorman, PhD, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, discussed Dr. Barnhorst’s article. “In the process of making her point, Barnhorst also manages to seriously trivialize the role of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression and to imply that, given societal woes, there isn’t much we can do to try to prevent suicides – aside from limiting access to lethal means,” they wrote.

The Gormans were not alone in their objections; the day after the op-ed appeared in the New York Times, a well-respected psychiatry department chairman took on not just the content of the op-ed, but also the author, in his Twitter feed. He wrote, “@amybarnhorst doesn’t read scientific literature or skipped training. this article is wrong. #suicide is largely preventable, if proper measures taken n Rx provided. @nytimes please vet authors better @APAPsychiatric.” Dr. Barnhorst, also a voice on Twitter, added the wry response, “I skipped training.” When Twitter users responded that initial Twitter comment conveyed a lack of civility toward a colleague, the original Tweeter – I’m withholding his name with the hope that even writing about these interactions won’t put me on anyone’s enemy list – like many others sitting on the poles of these contentious topics, responded with the following, “All for civility except in the case of misinformation that puts lives at risk, especially when purveyed by a professional who wears the patina of credibility.”

If it’s not yet obvious, I don’t believe there is a simple answer to our suicide problem, nor do I think it puts lives at risk to point out that, so far, our treatments have not lowered suicide rates. The issue is complex and we have no perfect explanation as to why countries differ so greatly with regard to suicide. There are impoverished, war-torn countries with remarkably lower suicide rates, and nations with much stricter gun laws that have higher statistics. Honduras, deemed “the murder capital of the world,” has an enviable suicide rate of only 2.9 per 100,000.

If the solution were as simple as making medications more accessible, the answer might be an easy one (or at least worth trying) – make antidepressants available over-the-counter, a move that would both increase access and decrease stigma.

Some people are determined to end their own lives. They aren’t looking to see psychiatrists or to call hotlines, and they may well resort to an alternate method if any given one is not readily available. For these individuals, suicide may not be preventable, and we may be left to say that this tragic phenomena with its diverse causes should also lead us to explore the root causes of human misery and our cultural features that lead some people to end their own lives while others endure.

Clearly, there are those who have untreated psychiatric illnesses and who make impulsive and lethal decisions – access to care and means restrictions certainly save some lives. And while it is obvious to us as psychiatrists that anyone who is depressed or is having suicidal thoughts is deserving of a psychiatric evaluation and intervention, the truth remains that access to treatment in this country is limited by finances, by the availability of mental health professionals, and by stigma and shame. In the end, I don’t believe we have a single easy answer as to why suicide rates are rising or a singular response that will stop this tragic phenomena. The one thing I am certain of is that our efforts to prevent suicide should unite, and not fracture, our profession.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a type of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that may occur independently of or in combination with systemic lupus erythematosus. About 10%-15% of patients with SCLE will develop systemic lupus erythematosus. White females are more typically affected.

SCLE lesions often present as scaly, annular, or polycyclic scaly patches and plaques with central clearing. They may appear psoriasiform. They heal without atrophy or scarring but may leave dyspigmentation. Follicular plugging is absent. Lesions generally occur on sun exposed areas such as the neck, V of the chest, and upper extremities. Up to 75% of patients may exhibit associated symptoms such as photosensitivity, oral ulcers, and arthritis. Less than 20% of patients will develop internal disease, including nephritis and pulmonary disease. Symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome and SCLE may overlap in some patients, and will portend higher risk for internal disease.

The differential diagnosis includes eczema, psoriasis, dermatophytosis, granuloma annulare, and erythema annulare centrifugum. Histology reveals epidermal atrophy and keratinocyte apoptosis, with a superficial and perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate in the upper dermis. Interface changes at the dermal-epidermal junction can be seen. Direct immunofluorescence of lesional skin is positive in one-third of cases, often revealing granular deposits of IgG and IgM at the dermal-epidermal junction and around hair follicles (called the lupus-band test). Serology in SCLE may reveal a positive antinuclear antigen test, as well as positive Ro/SSA antigen. Other lupus serologies such as La/SSB, dsDNA, antihistone, and Sm antibodies may be positive, but are less commonly seen.

Several drugs may cause SCLE, such as hydrochlorothiazide, terbinafine, ACE inhibitors, NSAIDs, calcium-channel blockers, interferons, anticonvulsants, griseofulvin, penicillamine, spironolactone, tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors, and statins. Discontinuing the offending medications may clear the lesions, but not always.

Treatment includes sunscreen and avoidance of sun exposure. Potent topical corticosteroids are helpful. If systemic treatment is indicated, antimalarials are first line.

This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a type of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that may occur independently of or in combination with systemic lupus erythematosus. About 10%-15% of patients with SCLE will develop systemic lupus erythematosus. White females are more typically affected.

SCLE lesions often present as scaly, annular, or polycyclic scaly patches and plaques with central clearing. They may appear psoriasiform. They heal without atrophy or scarring but may leave dyspigmentation. Follicular plugging is absent. Lesions generally occur on sun exposed areas such as the neck, V of the chest, and upper extremities. Up to 75% of patients may exhibit associated symptoms such as photosensitivity, oral ulcers, and arthritis. Less than 20% of patients will develop internal disease, including nephritis and pulmonary disease. Symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome and SCLE may overlap in some patients, and will portend higher risk for internal disease.

The differential diagnosis includes eczema, psoriasis, dermatophytosis, granuloma annulare, and erythema annulare centrifugum. Histology reveals epidermal atrophy and keratinocyte apoptosis, with a superficial and perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate in the upper dermis. Interface changes at the dermal-epidermal junction can be seen. Direct immunofluorescence of lesional skin is positive in one-third of cases, often revealing granular deposits of IgG and IgM at the dermal-epidermal junction and around hair follicles (called the lupus-band test). Serology in SCLE may reveal a positive antinuclear antigen test, as well as positive Ro/SSA antigen. Other lupus serologies such as La/SSB, dsDNA, antihistone, and Sm antibodies may be positive, but are less commonly seen.

Several drugs may cause SCLE, such as hydrochlorothiazide, terbinafine, ACE inhibitors, NSAIDs, calcium-channel blockers, interferons, anticonvulsants, griseofulvin, penicillamine, spironolactone, tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors, and statins. Discontinuing the offending medications may clear the lesions, but not always.

Treatment includes sunscreen and avoidance of sun exposure. Potent topical corticosteroids are helpful. If systemic treatment is indicated, antimalarials are first line.

This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) is a type of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that may occur independently of or in combination with systemic lupus erythematosus. About 10%-15% of patients with SCLE will develop systemic lupus erythematosus. White females are more typically affected.

SCLE lesions often present as scaly, annular, or polycyclic scaly patches and plaques with central clearing. They may appear psoriasiform. They heal without atrophy or scarring but may leave dyspigmentation. Follicular plugging is absent. Lesions generally occur on sun exposed areas such as the neck, V of the chest, and upper extremities. Up to 75% of patients may exhibit associated symptoms such as photosensitivity, oral ulcers, and arthritis. Less than 20% of patients will develop internal disease, including nephritis and pulmonary disease. Symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome and SCLE may overlap in some patients, and will portend higher risk for internal disease.

The differential diagnosis includes eczema, psoriasis, dermatophytosis, granuloma annulare, and erythema annulare centrifugum. Histology reveals epidermal atrophy and keratinocyte apoptosis, with a superficial and perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate in the upper dermis. Interface changes at the dermal-epidermal junction can be seen. Direct immunofluorescence of lesional skin is positive in one-third of cases, often revealing granular deposits of IgG and IgM at the dermal-epidermal junction and around hair follicles (called the lupus-band test). Serology in SCLE may reveal a positive antinuclear antigen test, as well as positive Ro/SSA antigen. Other lupus serologies such as La/SSB, dsDNA, antihistone, and Sm antibodies may be positive, but are less commonly seen.

Several drugs may cause SCLE, such as hydrochlorothiazide, terbinafine, ACE inhibitors, NSAIDs, calcium-channel blockers, interferons, anticonvulsants, griseofulvin, penicillamine, spironolactone, tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors, and statins. Discontinuing the offending medications may clear the lesions, but not always.

Treatment includes sunscreen and avoidance of sun exposure. Potent topical corticosteroids are helpful. If systemic treatment is indicated, antimalarials are first line.

This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

This column should arrive just in time. By now, you may have already failed some or all of your New Year’s resolutions. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!

marekuliasz/iStock/Getty Images

I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.

If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?

And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.

As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.

We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).

Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.

Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.

These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.

Happy New Year! And good luck!
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

This column should arrive just in time. By now, you may have already failed some or all of your New Year’s resolutions. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!

marekuliasz/iStock/Getty Images

I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.

If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?

And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.

As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.

We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).

Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.

Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.

These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.

Happy New Year! And good luck!
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

This column should arrive just in time. By now, you may have already failed some or all of your New Year’s resolutions. By this time in February, eighty percent of us will abort what we resolved to do this year. If this was you, it could be considered a catastrophic failure because not only is it a new year, it is a new decade. That’s right, the opportunity to fix the 10-year-imperfect you won’t come again until 2030!

marekuliasz/iStock/Getty Images

I’m among you. I intended to read fiction daily (starting with “The Great Gatsby,” not “Moby Dick” – I thought I would give myself a fighting chance, but alas ...), to workout at least 5 days every week (I tore my left triangular fibrocartilage complex, so there’s that), to write at least 500 words daily (I’m typing this one-handed: I’m lucky to get 500 letters a day). So I’m out.

If you resolved to do something this year, chances are it was to make a better you: a self-improvement goal such as losing weight, saving more money, or exercising more. According to a Marist Poll, these were the most popular resolutions for 2020. At the bottom of the most-likely-resolutions list were things like “worry less” or “be kinder to others.” These are important goals we’d agree, but we don’t deem them resolution-worthy. Why?

And why do we have New Year’s resolutions in the first place? When I looked into this further, I was surprised by some of the history I discovered.

As far back as the Babylonians, once a year, we’ve tried our best to get better. At the feast of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival (about March on our modern calendar), people resolved to do a better job of paying debts and returning favors – spin had not been invented, and yoga hadn’t caught on in the Middle East yet. This fundamental desire to be a better human seems hardwired, and long before Bullet Journals we seem to have loved “fresh start” days on the calendar. Yet, we’re doomed to fail, over and over, at least for the last 5,000 or so attempts.

We know so much more now. Put your Nike Renue Fusion shoes next to your bed so you get up and run first thing. Set SMART goals. Sign up for automatic retirement contribution and for automatic, plant-based meal delivery from Blue Apron. (I’ve no conflict of interest in these products).

Good ideas all, but I’m suggesting a different approach: Resolve to do something else this year.

Rather than try the same things we’ve attempted, how about selecting something from the bottom of the Marist Poll list – such as resolving to be more humble. Admit when you don’t know something or don’t understand what’s being discussed. Recognize and acknowledge when you’ve screwed up. Or resolve to be more selfless. Add on someone else’s patient, an extra call without expecting a favor in return, or do what you can to help a curbside consult, even if there is no reward or even a small risk to you. Repay the debt you owe your friends, family, colleagues, staff, and patients.

These things are a little trickier to track, but you can find a way to keep yourself accountable. Add a box to your weekly planner that says “Be humble and kind” and check it off for the next 42 weeks. Good news, March 1 falls on a Sunday this year – let’s call it the feast of Akitu.

Happy New Year! And good luck!
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

A 55-year-old woman comes to clinic for follow-up. She reports her family is worried that she isn’t getting enough sleep and is more tired than usual. The patient reports she is sleeping 8 hours a night and wakes up feeling rested, but she has noticed she has been yawning much more frequently than she remembers in the past.

Past medical history: gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, and osteoporosis. Medications: amlodipine, lansoprazole, irbesartan, escitalopram, levothyroxine, and alendronate. Physical examination: blood pressure 110/70 mm Hg, pulse 60 bpm. Lower extremities: 1+ edema.

What is the likely cause of her increased yawning?

A. Amlodipine.

B. Alendronate.

C. Irbesartan.

D. Escitalopram.

E. Lansoprazole.

The correct answer here is escitalopram. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general are well tolerated. Given how commonly these drugs are used, however, there are a number of lesser-known side effects that you are likely to see.

In the above case, this patient has yawning caused by her SSRI. Roncero et al. described a case of yawning in a patient on escitalopram that resolved when the dose of escitalopram was reduced.¹ Paroxetine has been reported to cause yawning at both low and high doses.²

In a review of drug-induced yawning, SSRIs as a class were most frequently involved, and sertraline and fluoxetine were implicated in addition to paroxetine.³ The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine have also been associated with yawning.^4,5

Hyperhydrosis has also been linked to SSRIs and SNRIs, and both yawning and hyperhidrosis may occur because of an underlying thermoregulatory dysfunction.⁶

SSRIs have been linked to increased bleeding risk, especially increased risk of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Laporte and colleagues showed an association of SSRI use and risk of bleeding in a meta-analysis of 42 observational studies, with an odds ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.57; P less than .0001).⁷ The risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is further increased if patients are also taking NSAIDs.

Anglin et al. looked at 15 case-control studies and 4 cohort studies and found an OR of 1.66 for UGI bleeding with SSRI use, and an OR of 4.25 for UGI bleeding if SSRI use was combined with NSAID use.⁸ The number needed to harm is 3,177 for NSAID use in populations at low risk for GI bleeding, but it is much lower (881) in higher-risk populations.⁸ Make sure to think about patients’ bleeding risks when starting SSRIs.

An issue that comes up frequently is: What is the risk of bleeding in patients on SSRIs who are also on anticoagulants? Dr. Quinn and colleagues looked at the bleeding risk of anticoagulated patients also taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF trial.⁹ They found 737 patients who received SSRIs and matched them with other patients not on SSRIs in the trial. All patients in the trial were either receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin for stroke prophylaxis. They found no significant increase risk in bleeding in the patients on SSRIs and anticoagulants.
 

Take-home points:

• Yawning and hyperhidrosis are interesting side effects of SSRIs.
• Bleeding risk is increased in patients on SSRIs, especially when combined with NSAIDs.

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. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Neurologia. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(9):589-90.

2. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Apr;60(2):260.

3. Presse Med. 2014 Oct;43(10 Pt 1):1135-6.

4. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Jun 15;33(4):747.

5. Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1297-301.

6. Depress Anxiety. 2017 Dec;34(12):1134-46.

7. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Apr;118:19-32.

8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;109(6):811-9.

9. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Aug 7;7(15):e008755.

A 55-year-old woman comes to clinic for follow-up. She reports her family is worried that she isn’t getting enough sleep and is more tired than usual. The patient reports she is sleeping 8 hours a night and wakes up feeling rested, but she has noticed she has been yawning much more frequently than she remembers in the past.

Past medical history: gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, and osteoporosis. Medications: amlodipine, lansoprazole, irbesartan, escitalopram, levothyroxine, and alendronate. Physical examination: blood pressure 110/70 mm Hg, pulse 60 bpm. Lower extremities: 1+ edema.

What is the likely cause of her increased yawning?

A. Amlodipine.

B. Alendronate.

C. Irbesartan.

D. Escitalopram.

E. Lansoprazole.

The correct answer here is escitalopram. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general are well tolerated. Given how commonly these drugs are used, however, there are a number of lesser-known side effects that you are likely to see.

In the above case, this patient has yawning caused by her SSRI. Roncero et al. described a case of yawning in a patient on escitalopram that resolved when the dose of escitalopram was reduced.¹ Paroxetine has been reported to cause yawning at both low and high doses.²

In a review of drug-induced yawning, SSRIs as a class were most frequently involved, and sertraline and fluoxetine were implicated in addition to paroxetine.³ The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine have also been associated with yawning.^4,5

Hyperhydrosis has also been linked to SSRIs and SNRIs, and both yawning and hyperhidrosis may occur because of an underlying thermoregulatory dysfunction.⁶

SSRIs have been linked to increased bleeding risk, especially increased risk of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Laporte and colleagues showed an association of SSRI use and risk of bleeding in a meta-analysis of 42 observational studies, with an odds ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.57; P less than .0001).⁷ The risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is further increased if patients are also taking NSAIDs.

Anglin et al. looked at 15 case-control studies and 4 cohort studies and found an OR of 1.66 for UGI bleeding with SSRI use, and an OR of 4.25 for UGI bleeding if SSRI use was combined with NSAID use.⁸ The number needed to harm is 3,177 for NSAID use in populations at low risk for GI bleeding, but it is much lower (881) in higher-risk populations.⁸ Make sure to think about patients’ bleeding risks when starting SSRIs.

An issue that comes up frequently is: What is the risk of bleeding in patients on SSRIs who are also on anticoagulants? Dr. Quinn and colleagues looked at the bleeding risk of anticoagulated patients also taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF trial.⁹ They found 737 patients who received SSRIs and matched them with other patients not on SSRIs in the trial. All patients in the trial were either receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin for stroke prophylaxis. They found no significant increase risk in bleeding in the patients on SSRIs and anticoagulants.
 

Take-home points:

• Yawning and hyperhidrosis are interesting side effects of SSRIs.
• Bleeding risk is increased in patients on SSRIs, especially when combined with NSAIDs.

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. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Neurologia. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(9):589-90.

2. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Apr;60(2):260.

3. Presse Med. 2014 Oct;43(10 Pt 1):1135-6.

4. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Jun 15;33(4):747.

5. Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1297-301.

6. Depress Anxiety. 2017 Dec;34(12):1134-46.

7. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Apr;118:19-32.

8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;109(6):811-9.

9. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Aug 7;7(15):e008755.

A 55-year-old woman comes to clinic for follow-up. She reports her family is worried that she isn’t getting enough sleep and is more tired than usual. The patient reports she is sleeping 8 hours a night and wakes up feeling rested, but she has noticed she has been yawning much more frequently than she remembers in the past.

Past medical history: gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, and osteoporosis. Medications: amlodipine, lansoprazole, irbesartan, escitalopram, levothyroxine, and alendronate. Physical examination: blood pressure 110/70 mm Hg, pulse 60 bpm. Lower extremities: 1+ edema.

What is the likely cause of her increased yawning?

A. Amlodipine.

B. Alendronate.

C. Irbesartan.

D. Escitalopram.

E. Lansoprazole.

The correct answer here is escitalopram. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general are well tolerated. Given how commonly these drugs are used, however, there are a number of lesser-known side effects that you are likely to see.

In the above case, this patient has yawning caused by her SSRI. Roncero et al. described a case of yawning in a patient on escitalopram that resolved when the dose of escitalopram was reduced.¹ Paroxetine has been reported to cause yawning at both low and high doses.²

In a review of drug-induced yawning, SSRIs as a class were most frequently involved, and sertraline and fluoxetine were implicated in addition to paroxetine.³ The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine have also been associated with yawning.^4,5

Hyperhydrosis has also been linked to SSRIs and SNRIs, and both yawning and hyperhidrosis may occur because of an underlying thermoregulatory dysfunction.⁶

SSRIs have been linked to increased bleeding risk, especially increased risk of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Laporte and colleagues showed an association of SSRI use and risk of bleeding in a meta-analysis of 42 observational studies, with an odds ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.57; P less than .0001).⁷ The risk of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding is further increased if patients are also taking NSAIDs.

Anglin et al. looked at 15 case-control studies and 4 cohort studies and found an OR of 1.66 for UGI bleeding with SSRI use, and an OR of 4.25 for UGI bleeding if SSRI use was combined with NSAID use.⁸ The number needed to harm is 3,177 for NSAID use in populations at low risk for GI bleeding, but it is much lower (881) in higher-risk populations.⁸ Make sure to think about patients’ bleeding risks when starting SSRIs.

An issue that comes up frequently is: What is the risk of bleeding in patients on SSRIs who are also on anticoagulants? Dr. Quinn and colleagues looked at the bleeding risk of anticoagulated patients also taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF trial.⁹ They found 737 patients who received SSRIs and matched them with other patients not on SSRIs in the trial. All patients in the trial were either receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin for stroke prophylaxis. They found no significant increase risk in bleeding in the patients on SSRIs and anticoagulants.
 

Take-home points:

• Yawning and hyperhidrosis are interesting side effects of SSRIs.
• Bleeding risk is increased in patients on SSRIs, especially when combined with NSAIDs.

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. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Neurologia. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(9):589-90.

2. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006 Apr;60(2):260.

3. Presse Med. 2014 Oct;43(10 Pt 1):1135-6.

4. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Jun 15;33(4):747.

5. Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1297-301.

6. Depress Anxiety. 2017 Dec;34(12):1134-46.

7. Pharmacol Res. 2017 Apr;118:19-32.

8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;109(6):811-9.

9. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Aug 7;7(15):e008755.