Commentary

What causes psoriasis in children?

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease with a genetic predisposition (Eichenfield et al). Similar to many inflammatory skin diseases, school-aged children have a greater predisposition before or in early adolescence. As with adult disease, pediatric psoriasis has a complex pathogenesis largely related to aberrant immune response to triggers such as infections (eg, streptococcal pharyngitis, perianal streptococcal dermatitis, upper respiratory viral infections), trauma (ie, Koebner phenomenon), stress, and obesity.

What are the emerging data and recommendations on screening for comorbidities in children with psoriasis?

Similar to psoriasis in adults, obesity and the metabolic syndrome are a true association with pediatric psoriasis that has been discussed in the literature (Eichenfield et al). Although many children with psoriasis have obesity as a potential comorbidity, the risk of cardiovascular comorbidities independent of obesity is high in pediatric psoriasis including elevated lipids, hypertension, polycystic ovaries, nonalcoholic liver disease, and elevated liver enzymes (Tollefson et al). Children with psoriasis have greater central obesity and adiposity, often accompanied by a family history of obesity. Interventions in this direction may be needed for long-term disease control and general health (Mercy and Paller). One target population is hospitalized children with psoriasis, particularly black and Hispanic children aged 0 to 9 years. This population has been identified to have a greater risk for obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, arrhythmia, and valvular heart disease (Kwa et al). Therefore, it can be said that dermatologists can help to improve the overall health and lifestyle long-term in children with psoriasis.

Early-onset disease also is associated with greater risk for lifetime quality-of-life impairments including poor lifetime dermatology life quality index scores, depression and psoriasis-induced depression, social discrimination, sleep problems, and recreational drug usage (Kim et al).

How does psoriasis in children differ from adults?

Children have a variety of features that differ from adult disease. First, they are more likely to have an infectious trigger and therefore may have an identifiable treatable source. Second, they are more likely to have a family history of disease, with one-third having a relative with psoriasis, therefore, identifying the child at risk for long-standing disease. Third, children have far more visible head and neck disease, especially facial involvement including eyelids (Raychaudhuri and Gross), which increases the risk of bullying, social stigma, and negative effects on self-image. Of course, site is affected by age, and in infancy diaper dermatitis and inverse disease with maceration and overlying candidal diaper dermatitis can occur. Although children have less joint disease, it can be dramatic and crippling to the developing child.

What treatments are available for children?

In childhood, identification of precipitating infections such as streptococcal infection is ideal with appropriate intervention thereafter. Topical therapies are appropriate for limited disease with minimal disability; however, phototherapy and systemic agents can be used in pediatric psoriasis in extensive cases. Topical therapies can include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors often used in sensitive skin such as the face and intertriginous areas, and calcipotriene (Eichenfield et al). Additional agents such as tar and salicylic acid can be used, with limitations on the latter due to risk for absorption in smaller children. Systemic interventions often are introduced after years of disease. A recent study identified practitioners with special interest in pediatric psoriasis and determined that systemic interventions were on average introduced 3 years after psoriasis was diagnosed and most commonly included methotrexate followed by etanercept, the latter having fewer gastrointestinal tract side effects. The panel found that usage of folic acid 6 days weekly minimized gastrointestinal tract side effects with methotrexate. Acitretin and cyclosporine were alternatives (Bronckers et al; Psoriasis Investigator Group [PsIG] of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the European Working Group on Pediatric Psoriasis [EWGPP]).

Recently, dermatologists have become aware of the dramatic benefits of immune response modifiers and some biologics on pediatric psoriasis. In the setting of joint and skin involvement, I allow the rheumatologist to make the choice of agents for the child's best outcome. However, for pediatric and adolescent psoriasis, we now have 2 US Food and Drug Administration-approved agents and more rapid and thorough testing of adult-approved agents in children, with a hope of greater ability to modify disease course at a younger age, both now and in the future.

Which biologics are approved for the pediatric patient population?

Currently, in the United States 2 biologics have been approved: (1) etanercept, a fusion protein of tumor necrosis factor receptor extracellular domain linked to the Fc portion of human IgG, for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients 4 years and older, and (2) ustekinumab, a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody against the shared p40 subunit of the IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines, for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients 12 years and older based on the encouraging data of the CADMUS trial (Kellen et al; Landells et al). In Europe, adalimumab has been approved as a first-line therapy in pediatric psoriasis (age ≥4 years), and etanercept (age ≥6 years) and ustekinumab (age ≥12 years) have been approved as second-line agents, all with grade A evidence, according to a recent Italian panel (Fortina et al). (A thorough review of the guidelines on screening, administration, and vaccination is available from Eichenfield et al.)

What treatments are in the pipeline?

In the United States we have clinical trials ongoing of adult-approved topical and immune response-modifying agents such as apremilast. These agents, as they become available and the data are gathered, will be added to what I refer to as our "pharmamentarium" of agents we can use to combat a difficult and disabling illness. 

What gaps are there in the pediatric psoriasis research?

Currently, there is poor awareness that there is research for pediatric psoriasis, and there is a need for pediatric groups and the National Psoriasis Foundation to allow children, adolescents, and their families to know that clinical trials are available looking into newer, more targeted, and less immunosuppressive agents. There is new hope on the horizon!

Suggested Readings

Bronckers IMGJ, Seyger MMB, West DP, et al; Psoriasis Investigator Group (PsIG) of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the European Working Group on Pediatric Psoriasis (EWGPP). Safety of systemic agents for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:1147-1157.

Eichenfield LF, Paller AS, Tom WL, et al. Pediatric psoriasis: evolving perspectives [published online January 4, 2018]. Pediatr Dermatol. doi:10.1111/pde.13382.

Fortina AB, Bardazzi F, Berti S, et al. Treatment of severe psoriasis in children: recommendations of an Italian expert group [published online August 23, 2017]. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176:1339-1354.

Kellen R, Silverberg NB, Lebwohl M. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in adolescents. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2016;7:109-120.

Kim GE, Seidler E, Kimball AB. Effect of age at diagnosis on chronic quality of life and long-term outcomes of individuals with psoriasis [published online December 29, 2014]. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:656-662.

Kwa L, Kwa MC, Silverberg JI. Cardiovascular comorbidities of pediatric psoriasis among hospitalized children in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:1023-1029.

Landells I, Marano C, Hsu MC, et al. Ustekinumab in adolescent patients age 12 to 17 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results of the randomized phase 3 CADMUS study [published online August 7, 2015]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:594-603.

Mercy KM, Paller AS. The relationship between obesity and psoriasis in the pediatric population: implications and future directions. Cutis. 2013;92:107-109.

Raychaudhuri SP, Gross J. A comparative study of pediatric onset psoriasis with adult onset psoriasis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2000;17:174-178.

Tollefson MM, Van Houten HK, Asante D, et al. Association of psoriasis with comorbidity development in children with psoriasis [published online January 10, 2018]. JAMA Dermatol. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5417. 

What causes psoriasis in children?

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease with a genetic predisposition (Eichenfield et al). Similar to many inflammatory skin diseases, school-aged children have a greater predisposition before or in early adolescence. As with adult disease, pediatric psoriasis has a complex pathogenesis largely related to aberrant immune response to triggers such as infections (eg, streptococcal pharyngitis, perianal streptococcal dermatitis, upper respiratory viral infections), trauma (ie, Koebner phenomenon), stress, and obesity.

What are the emerging data and recommendations on screening for comorbidities in children with psoriasis?

Similar to psoriasis in adults, obesity and the metabolic syndrome are a true association with pediatric psoriasis that has been discussed in the literature (Eichenfield et al). Although many children with psoriasis have obesity as a potential comorbidity, the risk of cardiovascular comorbidities independent of obesity is high in pediatric psoriasis including elevated lipids, hypertension, polycystic ovaries, nonalcoholic liver disease, and elevated liver enzymes (Tollefson et al). Children with psoriasis have greater central obesity and adiposity, often accompanied by a family history of obesity. Interventions in this direction may be needed for long-term disease control and general health (Mercy and Paller). One target population is hospitalized children with psoriasis, particularly black and Hispanic children aged 0 to 9 years. This population has been identified to have a greater risk for obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, arrhythmia, and valvular heart disease (Kwa et al). Therefore, it can be said that dermatologists can help to improve the overall health and lifestyle long-term in children with psoriasis.

Early-onset disease also is associated with greater risk for lifetime quality-of-life impairments including poor lifetime dermatology life quality index scores, depression and psoriasis-induced depression, social discrimination, sleep problems, and recreational drug usage (Kim et al).

How does psoriasis in children differ from adults?

Children have a variety of features that differ from adult disease. First, they are more likely to have an infectious trigger and therefore may have an identifiable treatable source. Second, they are more likely to have a family history of disease, with one-third having a relative with psoriasis, therefore, identifying the child at risk for long-standing disease. Third, children have far more visible head and neck disease, especially facial involvement including eyelids (Raychaudhuri and Gross), which increases the risk of bullying, social stigma, and negative effects on self-image. Of course, site is affected by age, and in infancy diaper dermatitis and inverse disease with maceration and overlying candidal diaper dermatitis can occur. Although children have less joint disease, it can be dramatic and crippling to the developing child.

What treatments are available for children?

In childhood, identification of precipitating infections such as streptococcal infection is ideal with appropriate intervention thereafter. Topical therapies are appropriate for limited disease with minimal disability; however, phototherapy and systemic agents can be used in pediatric psoriasis in extensive cases. Topical therapies can include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors often used in sensitive skin such as the face and intertriginous areas, and calcipotriene (Eichenfield et al). Additional agents such as tar and salicylic acid can be used, with limitations on the latter due to risk for absorption in smaller children. Systemic interventions often are introduced after years of disease. A recent study identified practitioners with special interest in pediatric psoriasis and determined that systemic interventions were on average introduced 3 years after psoriasis was diagnosed and most commonly included methotrexate followed by etanercept, the latter having fewer gastrointestinal tract side effects. The panel found that usage of folic acid 6 days weekly minimized gastrointestinal tract side effects with methotrexate. Acitretin and cyclosporine were alternatives (Bronckers et al; Psoriasis Investigator Group [PsIG] of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the European Working Group on Pediatric Psoriasis [EWGPP]).

Recently, dermatologists have become aware of the dramatic benefits of immune response modifiers and some biologics on pediatric psoriasis. In the setting of joint and skin involvement, I allow the rheumatologist to make the choice of agents for the child's best outcome. However, for pediatric and adolescent psoriasis, we now have 2 US Food and Drug Administration-approved agents and more rapid and thorough testing of adult-approved agents in children, with a hope of greater ability to modify disease course at a younger age, both now and in the future.

Which biologics are approved for the pediatric patient population?

Currently, in the United States 2 biologics have been approved: (1) etanercept, a fusion protein of tumor necrosis factor receptor extracellular domain linked to the Fc portion of human IgG, for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients 4 years and older, and (2) ustekinumab, a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody against the shared p40 subunit of the IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines, for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients 12 years and older based on the encouraging data of the CADMUS trial (Kellen et al; Landells et al). In Europe, adalimumab has been approved as a first-line therapy in pediatric psoriasis (age ≥4 years), and etanercept (age ≥6 years) and ustekinumab (age ≥12 years) have been approved as second-line agents, all with grade A evidence, according to a recent Italian panel (Fortina et al). (A thorough review of the guidelines on screening, administration, and vaccination is available from Eichenfield et al.)

What treatments are in the pipeline?

In the United States we have clinical trials ongoing of adult-approved topical and immune response-modifying agents such as apremilast. These agents, as they become available and the data are gathered, will be added to what I refer to as our "pharmamentarium" of agents we can use to combat a difficult and disabling illness. 

What gaps are there in the pediatric psoriasis research?

Currently, there is poor awareness that there is research for pediatric psoriasis, and there is a need for pediatric groups and the National Psoriasis Foundation to allow children, adolescents, and their families to know that clinical trials are available looking into newer, more targeted, and less immunosuppressive agents. There is new hope on the horizon!

Suggested Readings

Bronckers IMGJ, Seyger MMB, West DP, et al; Psoriasis Investigator Group (PsIG) of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the European Working Group on Pediatric Psoriasis (EWGPP). Safety of systemic agents for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:1147-1157.

Eichenfield LF, Paller AS, Tom WL, et al. Pediatric psoriasis: evolving perspectives [published online January 4, 2018]. Pediatr Dermatol. doi:10.1111/pde.13382.

Fortina AB, Bardazzi F, Berti S, et al. Treatment of severe psoriasis in children: recommendations of an Italian expert group [published online August 23, 2017]. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176:1339-1354.

Kellen R, Silverberg NB, Lebwohl M. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in adolescents. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2016;7:109-120.

Kim GE, Seidler E, Kimball AB. Effect of age at diagnosis on chronic quality of life and long-term outcomes of individuals with psoriasis [published online December 29, 2014]. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:656-662.

Kwa L, Kwa MC, Silverberg JI. Cardiovascular comorbidities of pediatric psoriasis among hospitalized children in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:1023-1029.

Landells I, Marano C, Hsu MC, et al. Ustekinumab in adolescent patients age 12 to 17 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results of the randomized phase 3 CADMUS study [published online August 7, 2015]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:594-603.

Mercy KM, Paller AS. The relationship between obesity and psoriasis in the pediatric population: implications and future directions. Cutis. 2013;92:107-109.

Raychaudhuri SP, Gross J. A comparative study of pediatric onset psoriasis with adult onset psoriasis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2000;17:174-178.

Tollefson MM, Van Houten HK, Asante D, et al. Association of psoriasis with comorbidity development in children with psoriasis [published online January 10, 2018]. JAMA Dermatol. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5417. 

What causes psoriasis in children?

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease with a genetic predisposition (Eichenfield et al). Similar to many inflammatory skin diseases, school-aged children have a greater predisposition before or in early adolescence. As with adult disease, pediatric psoriasis has a complex pathogenesis largely related to aberrant immune response to triggers such as infections (eg, streptococcal pharyngitis, perianal streptococcal dermatitis, upper respiratory viral infections), trauma (ie, Koebner phenomenon), stress, and obesity.

What are the emerging data and recommendations on screening for comorbidities in children with psoriasis?

Similar to psoriasis in adults, obesity and the metabolic syndrome are a true association with pediatric psoriasis that has been discussed in the literature (Eichenfield et al). Although many children with psoriasis have obesity as a potential comorbidity, the risk of cardiovascular comorbidities independent of obesity is high in pediatric psoriasis including elevated lipids, hypertension, polycystic ovaries, nonalcoholic liver disease, and elevated liver enzymes (Tollefson et al). Children with psoriasis have greater central obesity and adiposity, often accompanied by a family history of obesity. Interventions in this direction may be needed for long-term disease control and general health (Mercy and Paller). One target population is hospitalized children with psoriasis, particularly black and Hispanic children aged 0 to 9 years. This population has been identified to have a greater risk for obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, arrhythmia, and valvular heart disease (Kwa et al). Therefore, it can be said that dermatologists can help to improve the overall health and lifestyle long-term in children with psoriasis.

Early-onset disease also is associated with greater risk for lifetime quality-of-life impairments including poor lifetime dermatology life quality index scores, depression and psoriasis-induced depression, social discrimination, sleep problems, and recreational drug usage (Kim et al).

How does psoriasis in children differ from adults?

Children have a variety of features that differ from adult disease. First, they are more likely to have an infectious trigger and therefore may have an identifiable treatable source. Second, they are more likely to have a family history of disease, with one-third having a relative with psoriasis, therefore, identifying the child at risk for long-standing disease. Third, children have far more visible head and neck disease, especially facial involvement including eyelids (Raychaudhuri and Gross), which increases the risk of bullying, social stigma, and negative effects on self-image. Of course, site is affected by age, and in infancy diaper dermatitis and inverse disease with maceration and overlying candidal diaper dermatitis can occur. Although children have less joint disease, it can be dramatic and crippling to the developing child.

What treatments are available for children?

In childhood, identification of precipitating infections such as streptococcal infection is ideal with appropriate intervention thereafter. Topical therapies are appropriate for limited disease with minimal disability; however, phototherapy and systemic agents can be used in pediatric psoriasis in extensive cases. Topical therapies can include corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors often used in sensitive skin such as the face and intertriginous areas, and calcipotriene (Eichenfield et al). Additional agents such as tar and salicylic acid can be used, with limitations on the latter due to risk for absorption in smaller children. Systemic interventions often are introduced after years of disease. A recent study identified practitioners with special interest in pediatric psoriasis and determined that systemic interventions were on average introduced 3 years after psoriasis was diagnosed and most commonly included methotrexate followed by etanercept, the latter having fewer gastrointestinal tract side effects. The panel found that usage of folic acid 6 days weekly minimized gastrointestinal tract side effects with methotrexate. Acitretin and cyclosporine were alternatives (Bronckers et al; Psoriasis Investigator Group [PsIG] of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the European Working Group on Pediatric Psoriasis [EWGPP]).

Recently, dermatologists have become aware of the dramatic benefits of immune response modifiers and some biologics on pediatric psoriasis. In the setting of joint and skin involvement, I allow the rheumatologist to make the choice of agents for the child's best outcome. However, for pediatric and adolescent psoriasis, we now have 2 US Food and Drug Administration-approved agents and more rapid and thorough testing of adult-approved agents in children, with a hope of greater ability to modify disease course at a younger age, both now and in the future.

Which biologics are approved for the pediatric patient population?

Currently, in the United States 2 biologics have been approved: (1) etanercept, a fusion protein of tumor necrosis factor receptor extracellular domain linked to the Fc portion of human IgG, for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients 4 years and older, and (2) ustekinumab, a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody against the shared p40 subunit of the IL-12 and IL-23 cytokines, for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients 12 years and older based on the encouraging data of the CADMUS trial (Kellen et al; Landells et al). In Europe, adalimumab has been approved as a first-line therapy in pediatric psoriasis (age ≥4 years), and etanercept (age ≥6 years) and ustekinumab (age ≥12 years) have been approved as second-line agents, all with grade A evidence, according to a recent Italian panel (Fortina et al). (A thorough review of the guidelines on screening, administration, and vaccination is available from Eichenfield et al.)

What treatments are in the pipeline?

In the United States we have clinical trials ongoing of adult-approved topical and immune response-modifying agents such as apremilast. These agents, as they become available and the data are gathered, will be added to what I refer to as our "pharmamentarium" of agents we can use to combat a difficult and disabling illness. 

What gaps are there in the pediatric psoriasis research?

Currently, there is poor awareness that there is research for pediatric psoriasis, and there is a need for pediatric groups and the National Psoriasis Foundation to allow children, adolescents, and their families to know that clinical trials are available looking into newer, more targeted, and less immunosuppressive agents. There is new hope on the horizon!

Suggested Readings

Bronckers IMGJ, Seyger MMB, West DP, et al; Psoriasis Investigator Group (PsIG) of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the European Working Group on Pediatric Psoriasis (EWGPP). Safety of systemic agents for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:1147-1157.

Eichenfield LF, Paller AS, Tom WL, et al. Pediatric psoriasis: evolving perspectives [published online January 4, 2018]. Pediatr Dermatol. doi:10.1111/pde.13382.

Fortina AB, Bardazzi F, Berti S, et al. Treatment of severe psoriasis in children: recommendations of an Italian expert group [published online August 23, 2017]. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176:1339-1354.

Kellen R, Silverberg NB, Lebwohl M. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in adolescents. Pediatric Health Med Ther. 2016;7:109-120.

Kim GE, Seidler E, Kimball AB. Effect of age at diagnosis on chronic quality of life and long-term outcomes of individuals with psoriasis [published online December 29, 2014]. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:656-662.

Kwa L, Kwa MC, Silverberg JI. Cardiovascular comorbidities of pediatric psoriasis among hospitalized children in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77:1023-1029.

Landells I, Marano C, Hsu MC, et al. Ustekinumab in adolescent patients age 12 to 17 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results of the randomized phase 3 CADMUS study [published online August 7, 2015]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;73:594-603.

Mercy KM, Paller AS. The relationship between obesity and psoriasis in the pediatric population: implications and future directions. Cutis. 2013;92:107-109.

Raychaudhuri SP, Gross J. A comparative study of pediatric onset psoriasis with adult onset psoriasis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2000;17:174-178.

Tollefson MM, Van Houten HK, Asante D, et al. Association of psoriasis with comorbidity development in children with psoriasis [published online January 10, 2018]. JAMA Dermatol. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5417. 

We are now in the midst of a second revolution in the care of patients with psoriasis. Since biologic therapies for psoriasis were first introduced in 2003 with the approval of alefacept, the psoriasis treatment paradigm has shifted and continues to evolve. Interestingly, the first 2 biologic agents approved for psoriasis, alefacept and efalizumab, are no longer on the market in the United States.

We certainly have made progress since the early days of psoriasis treatment. Over the years, we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this knowledge, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. It is therefore the role of the dermatologist to serve as the gatekeeper for these individuals and help to screen for comorbidities of psoriasis, as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Additionally, psoriasis therapies have been approved for new segments of the population. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental biologics license application for use of etanercept in children aged 4 years and older with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved an expanded indication for ustekinumab for the treatment of adolescents (aged 12 years and older) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

Another treatment development included the approval of apremilast as a new oral therapeutic option for psoriasis patients. This agent, which is approved for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, has become an attractive therapy for many patients who are new to systemic treatment. Many patients prefer an oral medication and like the fact that no routine laboratory monitoring is required. Often patients leave their dermatologist’s office with 2- to 4-weeks’ worth of samples and can begin their course immediately.

A treat-to-target approach also has been established for psoriasis. In 2016, the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation¹ created specific treatment goals in order to make achieving clear or almost clear skin the new standard of care. A consensus-building study conducted among 25 psoriasis experts revealed that the most preferred instrument for evaluating disease severity was body surface area (BSA). The time at which most participants preferred to evaluate patient response after starting a new psoriasis therapy was 3 months, and an acceptable response at this timepoint was considered to be either BSA involvement of 3% or less or improvement in BSA involvement of 75% or more compared to baseline. The target response at 3 months after starting treatment was BSA involvement of 1% or less. During the maintenance period, evaluation every 6 months was most preferred, and the target response at every 6-month follow-up evaluation was BSA involvement of 1% or less.¹ These standards enable and encourage both clinicians and patients to maximize their treatment success.

Over the past several years, a variety of new biologic agents also have come to the market, including 3 IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, and secukinumab) and one IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab). All of these agents have added new options to the armamentarium for psoriasis treatment and are highly effective. Overall, the clinical improvement and safety profiles for these agents are promising, and these new drugs may be equal to or more efficacious than the currently available therapeutic options for psoriasis treatment; however, long-term studies are still needed to further establish the safety and efficacy profiles for these biologic agents. Even more novel therapies are in development, as will be discussed by Lee et al² in this issue.

It is the purpose of this special issue to review new standards of care for psoriasis in 2018. We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative.

We are now in the midst of a second revolution in the care of patients with psoriasis. Since biologic therapies for psoriasis were first introduced in 2003 with the approval of alefacept, the psoriasis treatment paradigm has shifted and continues to evolve. Interestingly, the first 2 biologic agents approved for psoriasis, alefacept and efalizumab, are no longer on the market in the United States.

We certainly have made progress since the early days of psoriasis treatment. Over the years, we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this knowledge, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. It is therefore the role of the dermatologist to serve as the gatekeeper for these individuals and help to screen for comorbidities of psoriasis, as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Additionally, psoriasis therapies have been approved for new segments of the population. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental biologics license application for use of etanercept in children aged 4 years and older with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved an expanded indication for ustekinumab for the treatment of adolescents (aged 12 years and older) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

Another treatment development included the approval of apremilast as a new oral therapeutic option for psoriasis patients. This agent, which is approved for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, has become an attractive therapy for many patients who are new to systemic treatment. Many patients prefer an oral medication and like the fact that no routine laboratory monitoring is required. Often patients leave their dermatologist’s office with 2- to 4-weeks’ worth of samples and can begin their course immediately.

A treat-to-target approach also has been established for psoriasis. In 2016, the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation¹ created specific treatment goals in order to make achieving clear or almost clear skin the new standard of care. A consensus-building study conducted among 25 psoriasis experts revealed that the most preferred instrument for evaluating disease severity was body surface area (BSA). The time at which most participants preferred to evaluate patient response after starting a new psoriasis therapy was 3 months, and an acceptable response at this timepoint was considered to be either BSA involvement of 3% or less or improvement in BSA involvement of 75% or more compared to baseline. The target response at 3 months after starting treatment was BSA involvement of 1% or less. During the maintenance period, evaluation every 6 months was most preferred, and the target response at every 6-month follow-up evaluation was BSA involvement of 1% or less.¹ These standards enable and encourage both clinicians and patients to maximize their treatment success.

Over the past several years, a variety of new biologic agents also have come to the market, including 3 IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, and secukinumab) and one IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab). All of these agents have added new options to the armamentarium for psoriasis treatment and are highly effective. Overall, the clinical improvement and safety profiles for these agents are promising, and these new drugs may be equal to or more efficacious than the currently available therapeutic options for psoriasis treatment; however, long-term studies are still needed to further establish the safety and efficacy profiles for these biologic agents. Even more novel therapies are in development, as will be discussed by Lee et al² in this issue.

It is the purpose of this special issue to review new standards of care for psoriasis in 2018. We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative.

We are now in the midst of a second revolution in the care of patients with psoriasis. Since biologic therapies for psoriasis were first introduced in 2003 with the approval of alefacept, the psoriasis treatment paradigm has shifted and continues to evolve. Interestingly, the first 2 biologic agents approved for psoriasis, alefacept and efalizumab, are no longer on the market in the United States.

We certainly have made progress since the early days of psoriasis treatment. Over the years, we have come to understand the nature of psoriasis as a systemic inflammatory condition rather than as simply a skin disease. With this knowledge, we have continued to identify systemic comorbidities associated with psoriasis, including cardiovascular risk, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. It is therefore the role of the dermatologist to serve as the gatekeeper for these individuals and help to screen for comorbidities of psoriasis, as well as provide appropriate counseling and referral.

Additionally, psoriasis therapies have been approved for new segments of the population. In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental biologics license application for use of etanercept in children aged 4 years and older with chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration also approved an expanded indication for ustekinumab for the treatment of adolescents (aged 12 years and older) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

Another treatment development included the approval of apremilast as a new oral therapeutic option for psoriasis patients. This agent, which is approved for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, has become an attractive therapy for many patients who are new to systemic treatment. Many patients prefer an oral medication and like the fact that no routine laboratory monitoring is required. Often patients leave their dermatologist’s office with 2- to 4-weeks’ worth of samples and can begin their course immediately.

A treat-to-target approach also has been established for psoriasis. In 2016, the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation¹ created specific treatment goals in order to make achieving clear or almost clear skin the new standard of care. A consensus-building study conducted among 25 psoriasis experts revealed that the most preferred instrument for evaluating disease severity was body surface area (BSA). The time at which most participants preferred to evaluate patient response after starting a new psoriasis therapy was 3 months, and an acceptable response at this timepoint was considered to be either BSA involvement of 3% or less or improvement in BSA involvement of 75% or more compared to baseline. The target response at 3 months after starting treatment was BSA involvement of 1% or less. During the maintenance period, evaluation every 6 months was most preferred, and the target response at every 6-month follow-up evaluation was BSA involvement of 1% or less.¹ These standards enable and encourage both clinicians and patients to maximize their treatment success.

Over the past several years, a variety of new biologic agents also have come to the market, including 3 IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab, brodalumab, and secukinumab) and one IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab). All of these agents have added new options to the armamentarium for psoriasis treatment and are highly effective. Overall, the clinical improvement and safety profiles for these agents are promising, and these new drugs may be equal to or more efficacious than the currently available therapeutic options for psoriasis treatment; however, long-term studies are still needed to further establish the safety and efficacy profiles for these biologic agents. Even more novel therapies are in development, as will be discussed by Lee et al² in this issue.

It is the purpose of this special issue to review new standards of care for psoriasis in 2018. We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative.

On Feb. 4, 2018, with his team narrowly leading the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 52, Philadelphia Eagles head coach Doug Pederson made an audacious 4th-and-goal call. At the suggestion of backup quarterback Nick Foles, Pederson chose to rely on his team’s ability to execute the “Philly Special.”  This was a risky trick play that was rehearsed but never tested, and one which could prove disastrous unless executed just right. With 34 seconds left in the first half, the Eagles pulled it off. Foles caught the ball in the end zone, securing his team’s place in football history and becoming the first quarterback to both throw for and catch a touchdown in one Super Bowl. He was named MVP and led the team to its first NFL title in 58 years.

For those of us who call Philadelphia our home, Super Bowl 52 represented so much more than just a victory, it was a miracle. We have long endured the highs and lows of Philadelphia football, watching as year after year our hopes were dashed by coaches and players who showed such promise, yet demonstrated such disappointment. But this year everything changed. 

True fans could sense something different in the weeks leading up to that cold February day in Minneapolis. As the Eagle’s chances of competing in the Super Bowl grew more and more possible, the narrative wasn’t about any star player or member of the coaching staff, but instead the story of an incredible team. Even after the injury of starting quarterback and football phenom Carson Wentz in week 14, players and fans never lost hope in the promise of victory. Finally, Philadelphia had the team that could,  and would, pull off something that had heretofore seemed like only an impossible dream.

It occurs to us that physicians should find the story of the Philadelphia Eagles not only inspirational, but also aspirational, even more so after reading the original research published by Dr. Richard Young, et al. in the February issue of Family Medicine.¹ In this article, Dr. Young and his colleagues observed physicians during 982 patient encounters.  The group measured the total visit time, face-to-face time, non-face time, and EHR work time (before, during, and after patient hours).  The results weren’t surprising: Physicians spend more time working in the EHR than they spend in face-to-face time with patients. 

This study confirmed prior work done by Ardnt et al. published in the fall in Annals of Family Medicine,² which demonstrated that “primary care physicians spend more than half their workday, nearly 6 hours, interacting with the EHR during and after clinic hours.” Sadly, despite improving technology, the chasm between interacting with computers and interacting with actual patients only seems to be widening. To preserve the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship, we are forced to consider a completely new approach to how we practice: team-based care.

Team-based care isn’t a new idea, but it is being embraced with new fervor in the era of electronic health records. This is because the blessing — and curse — of the EHR is the vast amount of information that can be stored and accessed while caring for patients. To take advantage of this, doctors have been forced to become the primary agents for data entry and retrieval, something that is nearly impossible to do effectively while performing the cognitive work of a highly educated clinician. Rather than allowing us to take better care of patients, EHRs seem to have a paradoxical effect, limiting “face-to-face” time and squelching our efforts to address anything outside the immediate issues at hand. To improve the experience for us and our patients, we need to begin to rely on others.

To start, consider how a team can help support your documentation. As we’ve written about before, scribe services can be a tremendous benefit but aren’t the only way to improve efficiency. Medical assistants and nursing staff need to be encouraged to operate at the top level of their license, documenting where allowable and even queueing up orders, medication refills, and preventative care interventions when appropriate.  This can be tremendously useful during previsit planning and can ensure that nothing is missed during the patient encounter. 

Team-based care can also extend far beyond the EHR. For example, care coordinators can be employed to focus on specific high- and rising-risk patient populations. These health care professionals (typically nurses) reach out directly to patients and review their care, and even schedule visits with patients independently of the physician. This establishes therapeutic relationships that have been shown to prevent disease exacerbations and hospital readmissions, greatly reducing the cost of care.

Some facilities are now also using scheduling advocates, charged with facilitating referrals, arranging specialist and diagnostic appointments, and following up with patients to make sure they’ve successfully navigated the health care landscape. Behavioral health specialists and clinical pharmacists are also making their way into physician practices to expand the scope of offerings and decompress the burden on physicians. While these all have an associated cost, changes in the way physicians get paid are making the extra support economical and often necessary to satisfy the requirements under risk-based and fee-for-value contracts. We also predict that practices that choose to eschew the team approach to care will lose a competitive advantage in a health care market that is becoming more and more consumer driven.  Patients, as well as providers, see the benefits of highly effective care teams.

Following the Eagles’ dramatic Super Bowl victory, coach Doug Pederson addressed his team in the locker room with these words: “This is a team game. As we’ve said before, an individual can make a difference, but a team makes a miracle.” While we as physicians may easily become jaded by the “miracles” of modern medicine, our patients have not yet lost hope in our ability to deliver on the promise of victory.  To meet their expectations, we need to acknowledge that we will no longer be able to make it into the end zone alone; instead — in the game of modern medicine — we’ll need a team to take us there.

1. Young RA, Burge SK, Kumar KA, Wilson JM, Ortiz DF. A Time-Motion Study of Primary Care Physicians’ Work in the Electronic Health Record Era. Fam Med. 2018 February;50(2):91-9.
2. Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD, Temte JL, Tuan W-J, Sinsky CA, Gilchrist VJ..Ann Fam Med. 2017 September/October;15(5)5:419-26.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and Associate Chief Medical Information Officer for Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte).

On Feb. 4, 2018, with his team narrowly leading the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 52, Philadelphia Eagles head coach Doug Pederson made an audacious 4th-and-goal call. At the suggestion of backup quarterback Nick Foles, Pederson chose to rely on his team’s ability to execute the “Philly Special.”  This was a risky trick play that was rehearsed but never tested, and one which could prove disastrous unless executed just right. With 34 seconds left in the first half, the Eagles pulled it off. Foles caught the ball in the end zone, securing his team’s place in football history and becoming the first quarterback to both throw for and catch a touchdown in one Super Bowl. He was named MVP and led the team to its first NFL title in 58 years.

For those of us who call Philadelphia our home, Super Bowl 52 represented so much more than just a victory, it was a miracle. We have long endured the highs and lows of Philadelphia football, watching as year after year our hopes were dashed by coaches and players who showed such promise, yet demonstrated such disappointment. But this year everything changed. 

True fans could sense something different in the weeks leading up to that cold February day in Minneapolis. As the Eagle’s chances of competing in the Super Bowl grew more and more possible, the narrative wasn’t about any star player or member of the coaching staff, but instead the story of an incredible team. Even after the injury of starting quarterback and football phenom Carson Wentz in week 14, players and fans never lost hope in the promise of victory. Finally, Philadelphia had the team that could,  and would, pull off something that had heretofore seemed like only an impossible dream.

It occurs to us that physicians should find the story of the Philadelphia Eagles not only inspirational, but also aspirational, even more so after reading the original research published by Dr. Richard Young, et al. in the February issue of Family Medicine.¹ In this article, Dr. Young and his colleagues observed physicians during 982 patient encounters.  The group measured the total visit time, face-to-face time, non-face time, and EHR work time (before, during, and after patient hours).  The results weren’t surprising: Physicians spend more time working in the EHR than they spend in face-to-face time with patients. 

This study confirmed prior work done by Ardnt et al. published in the fall in Annals of Family Medicine,² which demonstrated that “primary care physicians spend more than half their workday, nearly 6 hours, interacting with the EHR during and after clinic hours.” Sadly, despite improving technology, the chasm between interacting with computers and interacting with actual patients only seems to be widening. To preserve the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship, we are forced to consider a completely new approach to how we practice: team-based care.

Team-based care isn’t a new idea, but it is being embraced with new fervor in the era of electronic health records. This is because the blessing — and curse — of the EHR is the vast amount of information that can be stored and accessed while caring for patients. To take advantage of this, doctors have been forced to become the primary agents for data entry and retrieval, something that is nearly impossible to do effectively while performing the cognitive work of a highly educated clinician. Rather than allowing us to take better care of patients, EHRs seem to have a paradoxical effect, limiting “face-to-face” time and squelching our efforts to address anything outside the immediate issues at hand. To improve the experience for us and our patients, we need to begin to rely on others.

To start, consider how a team can help support your documentation. As we’ve written about before, scribe services can be a tremendous benefit but aren’t the only way to improve efficiency. Medical assistants and nursing staff need to be encouraged to operate at the top level of their license, documenting where allowable and even queueing up orders, medication refills, and preventative care interventions when appropriate.  This can be tremendously useful during previsit planning and can ensure that nothing is missed during the patient encounter. 

Team-based care can also extend far beyond the EHR. For example, care coordinators can be employed to focus on specific high- and rising-risk patient populations. These health care professionals (typically nurses) reach out directly to patients and review their care, and even schedule visits with patients independently of the physician. This establishes therapeutic relationships that have been shown to prevent disease exacerbations and hospital readmissions, greatly reducing the cost of care.

Some facilities are now also using scheduling advocates, charged with facilitating referrals, arranging specialist and diagnostic appointments, and following up with patients to make sure they’ve successfully navigated the health care landscape. Behavioral health specialists and clinical pharmacists are also making their way into physician practices to expand the scope of offerings and decompress the burden on physicians. While these all have an associated cost, changes in the way physicians get paid are making the extra support economical and often necessary to satisfy the requirements under risk-based and fee-for-value contracts. We also predict that practices that choose to eschew the team approach to care will lose a competitive advantage in a health care market that is becoming more and more consumer driven.  Patients, as well as providers, see the benefits of highly effective care teams.

Following the Eagles’ dramatic Super Bowl victory, coach Doug Pederson addressed his team in the locker room with these words: “This is a team game. As we’ve said before, an individual can make a difference, but a team makes a miracle.” While we as physicians may easily become jaded by the “miracles” of modern medicine, our patients have not yet lost hope in our ability to deliver on the promise of victory.  To meet their expectations, we need to acknowledge that we will no longer be able to make it into the end zone alone; instead — in the game of modern medicine — we’ll need a team to take us there.

1. Young RA, Burge SK, Kumar KA, Wilson JM, Ortiz DF. A Time-Motion Study of Primary Care Physicians’ Work in the Electronic Health Record Era. Fam Med. 2018 February;50(2):91-9.
2. Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD, Temte JL, Tuan W-J, Sinsky CA, Gilchrist VJ..Ann Fam Med. 2017 September/October;15(5)5:419-26.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and Associate Chief Medical Information Officer for Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte).

On Feb. 4, 2018, with his team narrowly leading the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 52, Philadelphia Eagles head coach Doug Pederson made an audacious 4th-and-goal call. At the suggestion of backup quarterback Nick Foles, Pederson chose to rely on his team’s ability to execute the “Philly Special.”  This was a risky trick play that was rehearsed but never tested, and one which could prove disastrous unless executed just right. With 34 seconds left in the first half, the Eagles pulled it off. Foles caught the ball in the end zone, securing his team’s place in football history and becoming the first quarterback to both throw for and catch a touchdown in one Super Bowl. He was named MVP and led the team to its first NFL title in 58 years.

For those of us who call Philadelphia our home, Super Bowl 52 represented so much more than just a victory, it was a miracle. We have long endured the highs and lows of Philadelphia football, watching as year after year our hopes were dashed by coaches and players who showed such promise, yet demonstrated such disappointment. But this year everything changed. 

True fans could sense something different in the weeks leading up to that cold February day in Minneapolis. As the Eagle’s chances of competing in the Super Bowl grew more and more possible, the narrative wasn’t about any star player or member of the coaching staff, but instead the story of an incredible team. Even after the injury of starting quarterback and football phenom Carson Wentz in week 14, players and fans never lost hope in the promise of victory. Finally, Philadelphia had the team that could,  and would, pull off something that had heretofore seemed like only an impossible dream.

It occurs to us that physicians should find the story of the Philadelphia Eagles not only inspirational, but also aspirational, even more so after reading the original research published by Dr. Richard Young, et al. in the February issue of Family Medicine.¹ In this article, Dr. Young and his colleagues observed physicians during 982 patient encounters.  The group measured the total visit time, face-to-face time, non-face time, and EHR work time (before, during, and after patient hours).  The results weren’t surprising: Physicians spend more time working in the EHR than they spend in face-to-face time with patients. 

This study confirmed prior work done by Ardnt et al. published in the fall in Annals of Family Medicine,² which demonstrated that “primary care physicians spend more than half their workday, nearly 6 hours, interacting with the EHR during and after clinic hours.” Sadly, despite improving technology, the chasm between interacting with computers and interacting with actual patients only seems to be widening. To preserve the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship, we are forced to consider a completely new approach to how we practice: team-based care.

Team-based care isn’t a new idea, but it is being embraced with new fervor in the era of electronic health records. This is because the blessing — and curse — of the EHR is the vast amount of information that can be stored and accessed while caring for patients. To take advantage of this, doctors have been forced to become the primary agents for data entry and retrieval, something that is nearly impossible to do effectively while performing the cognitive work of a highly educated clinician. Rather than allowing us to take better care of patients, EHRs seem to have a paradoxical effect, limiting “face-to-face” time and squelching our efforts to address anything outside the immediate issues at hand. To improve the experience for us and our patients, we need to begin to rely on others.

To start, consider how a team can help support your documentation. As we’ve written about before, scribe services can be a tremendous benefit but aren’t the only way to improve efficiency. Medical assistants and nursing staff need to be encouraged to operate at the top level of their license, documenting where allowable and even queueing up orders, medication refills, and preventative care interventions when appropriate.  This can be tremendously useful during previsit planning and can ensure that nothing is missed during the patient encounter. 

Team-based care can also extend far beyond the EHR. For example, care coordinators can be employed to focus on specific high- and rising-risk patient populations. These health care professionals (typically nurses) reach out directly to patients and review their care, and even schedule visits with patients independently of the physician. This establishes therapeutic relationships that have been shown to prevent disease exacerbations and hospital readmissions, greatly reducing the cost of care.

Some facilities are now also using scheduling advocates, charged with facilitating referrals, arranging specialist and diagnostic appointments, and following up with patients to make sure they’ve successfully navigated the health care landscape. Behavioral health specialists and clinical pharmacists are also making their way into physician practices to expand the scope of offerings and decompress the burden on physicians. While these all have an associated cost, changes in the way physicians get paid are making the extra support economical and often necessary to satisfy the requirements under risk-based and fee-for-value contracts. We also predict that practices that choose to eschew the team approach to care will lose a competitive advantage in a health care market that is becoming more and more consumer driven.  Patients, as well as providers, see the benefits of highly effective care teams.

Following the Eagles’ dramatic Super Bowl victory, coach Doug Pederson addressed his team in the locker room with these words: “This is a team game. As we’ve said before, an individual can make a difference, but a team makes a miracle.” While we as physicians may easily become jaded by the “miracles” of modern medicine, our patients have not yet lost hope in our ability to deliver on the promise of victory.  To meet their expectations, we need to acknowledge that we will no longer be able to make it into the end zone alone; instead — in the game of modern medicine — we’ll need a team to take us there.

1. Young RA, Burge SK, Kumar KA, Wilson JM, Ortiz DF. A Time-Motion Study of Primary Care Physicians’ Work in the Electronic Health Record Era. Fam Med. 2018 February;50(2):91-9.
2. Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD, Temte JL, Tuan W-J, Sinsky CA, Gilchrist VJ..Ann Fam Med. 2017 September/October;15(5)5:419-26.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Notte is a family physician and Associate Chief Medical Information Officer for Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte).

Technology offers new opportunities that can both enhance and challenge the physician-patient relationship, including the ways in which patients are educated. Ensuring dermatology patients are appropriately educated about their conditions can improve clinical care and treatment adherence, increase patient satisfaction, and potentially decrease medical costs. There are various digital methods by which physicians can deliver information to their patients, and while there are benefits and drawbacks to each, many Americans turn to the Internet for health information—a practice that is only predicted to become more prevalent.¹

Dermatologists should strive to keep up with this trend by staying informed about the digital patient education options that are available and which tools they can use to more effectively share their knowledge with patients. Electronic health education has a powerful potential, but it is up to physicians to direct patients to the appropriate resources and education tools that will support their clear understanding of all elements of care.

Effective patient education can transform the role of the patient from passive recipient to active participant in his/her care and subsequently supports the physician-patient relationship. The benefits of patient education are timely and valuable with the new pay-for-performance model instated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.² In dermatology, patient education alone can essentially be a management strategy for numerous conditions (eg, identifying which triggers patients with contact dermatitis should avoid). On the other hand, a lack of patient knowledge can result in perceived noncompliance or treatment failure, when in reality there has simply been a communication gap between the physician and the patient. For example, if a patient notices little to no improvement of a fungal infection after applying ketoconazole shampoo 2% to affected areas and immediately rinsing, this does not necessarily constitute a treatment failure, as the patient should have been educated on the importance of leaving the shampoo on for 5 minutes before rinsing. One study alluded to this communication gap, revealing physicians’ tendency to overestimate how effectively they are communicating with their patients.³

Successful patient education ultimately is dependent on both the content provided and the method of delivery. In one survey of 2636 Internet users, 72% of respondents admitted to searching online for health information within the previous year; however, the same survey showed that physicians remain patients’ most trusted source of information.⁴ Physicians can use digital education methods to fulfill patient needs by providing them with and directing them to credible up-to-date sources.

Physicians can use electronic medical record (EMR) systems to electronically deliver health information to patients by directly communicating via an online patient portal. Allowing patients to engage with their health care providers electronically has been shown to increase patient satisfaction, promote adherence to preventative and treatment recommendations, improve clinical outcomes, and lower medical costs.⁵ The online portal can provide direct links for patients to digital resources; for example, MedlinePlus Connect (https://medlineplus.gov/connect/overview.html) is a free service that connects patients to MedlinePlus, an authoritative, up-to-date health information resource for consumer health information; however, many EMR systems lack quality dermatology content, as there is a greater emphasis on primary care, and patient usage of these online portals also is notoriously low.⁶ Dermatologists can work with EMR vendors to enhance the dermatology content for patient portals, and in some cases, specialty-specific content may be available for an additional fee. Clinicians can make their patients aware of the online portal and incentivize its use by sending an informational email, including a link on their practice’s website, promoting the portal during check-in and check-out at office visits, making tablets or kiosks available in the waiting room for sign-up, hanging posters in the examination rooms, and explaining the portal’s useful features during consultations with patients.

Mobile apps have revolutionized the potential for dermatologists to streamline patient education to a large population. In a 2014 review of 365 dermatology mobile apps, 13% were categorized as educational aids, adding to the realm of possibilities for digital patient education. For example, these apps may provide information on specific dermatologic conditions and medications, help users perform skin cancer checks, and provide reminders for when to administer injections for those on biologics. However, a drawback of medical mobile apps is that, to date, the US Food and Drug Administration has not released formal guidelines for their development.

It would be impractical for busy dermatologists to keep up with the credibility of every mobile app available in a growing market, but one solution could be for physicians to stay informed on only the most popular and most reviewed apps to keep in their digital toolbox. In 2014, the most reviewed dermatology app was the Dermatology app, which provided a guide to common dermatologic conditions and included images and a list of symptoms.⁷ To help keep physicians up to date on the most reliable dermatology apps, specialty societies, journal task forces, or interested dermatologists, residents, or medical students could publish updated literature on the most popular and most reviewed dermatology apps for patient education annually or biannually.

A practice’s website is a prime place for physicians to direct patients to educational content. Although many dermatology practice websites offer clinical information, the content often is focused on cosmetic procedures or is designed for search engine optimization to support online marketing and therefore may not be helpful to patients trying to understand a specific condition or treatment. Links to trusted resources, such as dermatology journals or medical societies, may be added but also would direct patients away from the practice’s website and would not allow physicians to customize the information he or she would like to share with their patients. Dermatologists should consider investing time and money into customizing educational material for their websites so patients can access health information from the source they trust most: their own physician.

Many of these digital options are useful for patients who want to access education material outside of the physician’s office, but digital opportunities to enhance point-of-care education also are available. In 2016, the American Academy of Dermatology partnered with ContextMedia:Health with the goal of delivering important decision enhancement technologies, educational content, and intelligence to patients and dermatologists for use before and during the consultation.⁸ ContextMedia:Health’s digital wallboard tablets are an engaging way to visually explain conditions and treatments to patients during the consultation, thus empowering physicians and patients to make decisions together and helping patients to be better advocates of their own health care. The downside is that health care workers must devote time and resources to be trained in using these devices.

The increasing availability of technology for electronic health information can be both beneficial and challenging for dermatologists. Physicians should explore and familiarize themselves with the tools that are available and assess their effectiveness by communicating with patients about their perception and understanding of their conditions. Digital delivery of health information is not meant to replace other methods of patient education but to supplement and reinforce them that which is verbally discussed during the office visit. Electronic health education demonstrates powerful potential, but it is up to the physician to direct patients to the appropriate resources and educational tools that will support a clear understanding of all elements of care.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Dr. Mark Becker (Berkeley, California) for helpful discussion and reviewing this manuscript.

Technology offers new opportunities that can both enhance and challenge the physician-patient relationship, including the ways in which patients are educated. Ensuring dermatology patients are appropriately educated about their conditions can improve clinical care and treatment adherence, increase patient satisfaction, and potentially decrease medical costs. There are various digital methods by which physicians can deliver information to their patients, and while there are benefits and drawbacks to each, many Americans turn to the Internet for health information—a practice that is only predicted to become more prevalent.¹

Dermatologists should strive to keep up with this trend by staying informed about the digital patient education options that are available and which tools they can use to more effectively share their knowledge with patients. Electronic health education has a powerful potential, but it is up to physicians to direct patients to the appropriate resources and education tools that will support their clear understanding of all elements of care.

Effective patient education can transform the role of the patient from passive recipient to active participant in his/her care and subsequently supports the physician-patient relationship. The benefits of patient education are timely and valuable with the new pay-for-performance model instated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.² In dermatology, patient education alone can essentially be a management strategy for numerous conditions (eg, identifying which triggers patients with contact dermatitis should avoid). On the other hand, a lack of patient knowledge can result in perceived noncompliance or treatment failure, when in reality there has simply been a communication gap between the physician and the patient. For example, if a patient notices little to no improvement of a fungal infection after applying ketoconazole shampoo 2% to affected areas and immediately rinsing, this does not necessarily constitute a treatment failure, as the patient should have been educated on the importance of leaving the shampoo on for 5 minutes before rinsing. One study alluded to this communication gap, revealing physicians’ tendency to overestimate how effectively they are communicating with their patients.³

Successful patient education ultimately is dependent on both the content provided and the method of delivery. In one survey of 2636 Internet users, 72% of respondents admitted to searching online for health information within the previous year; however, the same survey showed that physicians remain patients’ most trusted source of information.⁴ Physicians can use digital education methods to fulfill patient needs by providing them with and directing them to credible up-to-date sources.

Physicians can use electronic medical record (EMR) systems to electronically deliver health information to patients by directly communicating via an online patient portal. Allowing patients to engage with their health care providers electronically has been shown to increase patient satisfaction, promote adherence to preventative and treatment recommendations, improve clinical outcomes, and lower medical costs.⁵ The online portal can provide direct links for patients to digital resources; for example, MedlinePlus Connect (https://medlineplus.gov/connect/overview.html) is a free service that connects patients to MedlinePlus, an authoritative, up-to-date health information resource for consumer health information; however, many EMR systems lack quality dermatology content, as there is a greater emphasis on primary care, and patient usage of these online portals also is notoriously low.⁶ Dermatologists can work with EMR vendors to enhance the dermatology content for patient portals, and in some cases, specialty-specific content may be available for an additional fee. Clinicians can make their patients aware of the online portal and incentivize its use by sending an informational email, including a link on their practice’s website, promoting the portal during check-in and check-out at office visits, making tablets or kiosks available in the waiting room for sign-up, hanging posters in the examination rooms, and explaining the portal’s useful features during consultations with patients.

Mobile apps have revolutionized the potential for dermatologists to streamline patient education to a large population. In a 2014 review of 365 dermatology mobile apps, 13% were categorized as educational aids, adding to the realm of possibilities for digital patient education. For example, these apps may provide information on specific dermatologic conditions and medications, help users perform skin cancer checks, and provide reminders for when to administer injections for those on biologics. However, a drawback of medical mobile apps is that, to date, the US Food and Drug Administration has not released formal guidelines for their development.

It would be impractical for busy dermatologists to keep up with the credibility of every mobile app available in a growing market, but one solution could be for physicians to stay informed on only the most popular and most reviewed apps to keep in their digital toolbox. In 2014, the most reviewed dermatology app was the Dermatology app, which provided a guide to common dermatologic conditions and included images and a list of symptoms.⁷ To help keep physicians up to date on the most reliable dermatology apps, specialty societies, journal task forces, or interested dermatologists, residents, or medical students could publish updated literature on the most popular and most reviewed dermatology apps for patient education annually or biannually.

A practice’s website is a prime place for physicians to direct patients to educational content. Although many dermatology practice websites offer clinical information, the content often is focused on cosmetic procedures or is designed for search engine optimization to support online marketing and therefore may not be helpful to patients trying to understand a specific condition or treatment. Links to trusted resources, such as dermatology journals or medical societies, may be added but also would direct patients away from the practice’s website and would not allow physicians to customize the information he or she would like to share with their patients. Dermatologists should consider investing time and money into customizing educational material for their websites so patients can access health information from the source they trust most: their own physician.

Many of these digital options are useful for patients who want to access education material outside of the physician’s office, but digital opportunities to enhance point-of-care education also are available. In 2016, the American Academy of Dermatology partnered with ContextMedia:Health with the goal of delivering important decision enhancement technologies, educational content, and intelligence to patients and dermatologists for use before and during the consultation.⁸ ContextMedia:Health’s digital wallboard tablets are an engaging way to visually explain conditions and treatments to patients during the consultation, thus empowering physicians and patients to make decisions together and helping patients to be better advocates of their own health care. The downside is that health care workers must devote time and resources to be trained in using these devices.

The increasing availability of technology for electronic health information can be both beneficial and challenging for dermatologists. Physicians should explore and familiarize themselves with the tools that are available and assess their effectiveness by communicating with patients about their perception and understanding of their conditions. Digital delivery of health information is not meant to replace other methods of patient education but to supplement and reinforce them that which is verbally discussed during the office visit. Electronic health education demonstrates powerful potential, but it is up to the physician to direct patients to the appropriate resources and educational tools that will support a clear understanding of all elements of care.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Dr. Mark Becker (Berkeley, California) for helpful discussion and reviewing this manuscript.

Technology offers new opportunities that can both enhance and challenge the physician-patient relationship, including the ways in which patients are educated. Ensuring dermatology patients are appropriately educated about their conditions can improve clinical care and treatment adherence, increase patient satisfaction, and potentially decrease medical costs. There are various digital methods by which physicians can deliver information to their patients, and while there are benefits and drawbacks to each, many Americans turn to the Internet for health information—a practice that is only predicted to become more prevalent.¹

Dermatologists should strive to keep up with this trend by staying informed about the digital patient education options that are available and which tools they can use to more effectively share their knowledge with patients. Electronic health education has a powerful potential, but it is up to physicians to direct patients to the appropriate resources and education tools that will support their clear understanding of all elements of care.

Effective patient education can transform the role of the patient from passive recipient to active participant in his/her care and subsequently supports the physician-patient relationship. The benefits of patient education are timely and valuable with the new pay-for-performance model instated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.² In dermatology, patient education alone can essentially be a management strategy for numerous conditions (eg, identifying which triggers patients with contact dermatitis should avoid). On the other hand, a lack of patient knowledge can result in perceived noncompliance or treatment failure, when in reality there has simply been a communication gap between the physician and the patient. For example, if a patient notices little to no improvement of a fungal infection after applying ketoconazole shampoo 2% to affected areas and immediately rinsing, this does not necessarily constitute a treatment failure, as the patient should have been educated on the importance of leaving the shampoo on for 5 minutes before rinsing. One study alluded to this communication gap, revealing physicians’ tendency to overestimate how effectively they are communicating with their patients.³

Successful patient education ultimately is dependent on both the content provided and the method of delivery. In one survey of 2636 Internet users, 72% of respondents admitted to searching online for health information within the previous year; however, the same survey showed that physicians remain patients’ most trusted source of information.⁴ Physicians can use digital education methods to fulfill patient needs by providing them with and directing them to credible up-to-date sources.

Physicians can use electronic medical record (EMR) systems to electronically deliver health information to patients by directly communicating via an online patient portal. Allowing patients to engage with their health care providers electronically has been shown to increase patient satisfaction, promote adherence to preventative and treatment recommendations, improve clinical outcomes, and lower medical costs.⁵ The online portal can provide direct links for patients to digital resources; for example, MedlinePlus Connect (https://medlineplus.gov/connect/overview.html) is a free service that connects patients to MedlinePlus, an authoritative, up-to-date health information resource for consumer health information; however, many EMR systems lack quality dermatology content, as there is a greater emphasis on primary care, and patient usage of these online portals also is notoriously low.⁶ Dermatologists can work with EMR vendors to enhance the dermatology content for patient portals, and in some cases, specialty-specific content may be available for an additional fee. Clinicians can make their patients aware of the online portal and incentivize its use by sending an informational email, including a link on their practice’s website, promoting the portal during check-in and check-out at office visits, making tablets or kiosks available in the waiting room for sign-up, hanging posters in the examination rooms, and explaining the portal’s useful features during consultations with patients.

Mobile apps have revolutionized the potential for dermatologists to streamline patient education to a large population. In a 2014 review of 365 dermatology mobile apps, 13% were categorized as educational aids, adding to the realm of possibilities for digital patient education. For example, these apps may provide information on specific dermatologic conditions and medications, help users perform skin cancer checks, and provide reminders for when to administer injections for those on biologics. However, a drawback of medical mobile apps is that, to date, the US Food and Drug Administration has not released formal guidelines for their development.

It would be impractical for busy dermatologists to keep up with the credibility of every mobile app available in a growing market, but one solution could be for physicians to stay informed on only the most popular and most reviewed apps to keep in their digital toolbox. In 2014, the most reviewed dermatology app was the Dermatology app, which provided a guide to common dermatologic conditions and included images and a list of symptoms.⁷ To help keep physicians up to date on the most reliable dermatology apps, specialty societies, journal task forces, or interested dermatologists, residents, or medical students could publish updated literature on the most popular and most reviewed dermatology apps for patient education annually or biannually.

A practice’s website is a prime place for physicians to direct patients to educational content. Although many dermatology practice websites offer clinical information, the content often is focused on cosmetic procedures or is designed for search engine optimization to support online marketing and therefore may not be helpful to patients trying to understand a specific condition or treatment. Links to trusted resources, such as dermatology journals or medical societies, may be added but also would direct patients away from the practice’s website and would not allow physicians to customize the information he or she would like to share with their patients. Dermatologists should consider investing time and money into customizing educational material for their websites so patients can access health information from the source they trust most: their own physician.

Many of these digital options are useful for patients who want to access education material outside of the physician’s office, but digital opportunities to enhance point-of-care education also are available. In 2016, the American Academy of Dermatology partnered with ContextMedia:Health with the goal of delivering important decision enhancement technologies, educational content, and intelligence to patients and dermatologists for use before and during the consultation.⁸ ContextMedia:Health’s digital wallboard tablets are an engaging way to visually explain conditions and treatments to patients during the consultation, thus empowering physicians and patients to make decisions together and helping patients to be better advocates of their own health care. The downside is that health care workers must devote time and resources to be trained in using these devices.

The increasing availability of technology for electronic health information can be both beneficial and challenging for dermatologists. Physicians should explore and familiarize themselves with the tools that are available and assess their effectiveness by communicating with patients about their perception and understanding of their conditions. Digital delivery of health information is not meant to replace other methods of patient education but to supplement and reinforce them that which is verbally discussed during the office visit. Electronic health education demonstrates powerful potential, but it is up to the physician to direct patients to the appropriate resources and educational tools that will support a clear understanding of all elements of care.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Dr. Mark Becker (Berkeley, California) for helpful discussion and reviewing this manuscript.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

As March arrives, we rejoice in the promise of spring sunlight and start planning ahead for summer and its associated clothing, which tends to be a bit more … revealing, shall we say. If we’re really motivated, we might dust off our (quickly forgotten) New Year’s weight-loss resolutions, adjusting our carb:veggie ratio to get beach-ready. Furthermore, March historically signified the start of farming season—making it a natural fit for National Nutrition Month.

In 1973, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) initiated a week-long campaign to educate the public about healthy eating, encouraging good dietary and exercise habits. The campaign became a month-long observance in 1980, in response to increased consumer interest in nutrition.¹ Since then, AND has produced videos and other materials to assist the public in making better food choices and adjusting meal plans to fit individual energy needs.

This guidance is needed more now than ever before. About 75% of Americans follow a diet that is low in fruits, vegetables, dairy, and oils (compared to the recommended values)—and most exceed the recommended allotment for added sugars, sodium, and saturated fats.² It’s no surprise, then, that two-thirds of US adults are either overweight or obese.²

It is imperative that we, as health care providers, provide our patients and their families with practical, evidence-based information about healthy food choices. But are we sufficiently educated to provide that guidance?

I admit, my confidence in my nutritional knowledge falls short of the mark. I vaguely recall nutrition being discussed in one of my basic nursing courses; diets designed for specific disease entities were introduced as I progressed in my education. But a specific nutrition course is not a requirement in the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education’s Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice—even though nutrition is directly linked to wellness and health promotion is an essential component of nursing practice.³ (This inconsistency in nutrition education holds true for our PA colleagues, as well.)

How, then, do we educate ourselves so that we can impart the necessary guidance to our patients? The plethora of articles—some more scholarly than others—on what we should and should not eat can be very confusing.

Generally, though, the soundest advice encourages a healthy lifestyle, with emphasis on consistent, enjoyable eating practices and regular physical activity. Of particular note: The word “diet” is not included in most guides. Rather, we are advised to make small changes to the way we think about eating.

Substituting fruit for added sugar, whole grains for refined grains, and oils for solid fats are just a few simple ways to transition to a healthier eating regimen.² Another adaptation is to plan out meals and snacks prior to food shopping; this not only prevents us from making poor choices and purchasing items based on impulse or hunger, but also decreases food waste. These comparatively small adjustments can make a real difference over time.

To help achieve the goal of a healthy lifestyle, AND offers the following suggestions:

• Include a variety of healthful foods from all food groups on a regular basis.
• Consider which food items you have on hand before buying more at the store.
• Buy only an amount that can be eaten within a few days (or stored in the freezer) and plan ways to use leftovers later in the week.
• Be mindful of portion sizes.
• Find activities you enjoy to keep you physically active throughout the week.⁴

We also have a resource at our fingertips that we often overlook: registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs). These professionals are educated specifically to provide counseling on food choices and can help clear the murky waters surrounding nutrition. An RDN can partner with a consumer to develop a safe, effective, sustainable eating plan that takes into consideration health status, lifestyle, and personal taste preferences.

In addition to RDN colleagues, there are trustworthy, easy-to-navigate websites that provide resources on nutrition and healthy eating. They also have tools we can provide to our patients and their families (see box). For example, ChooseMyPlate (www.choosemyplate.gov) is an interactive site based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that provides information on how much of each food group should be eaten each day. It also includes resources for planning well-balanced, healthy meals and a series of fact sheets with tips that can be useful for patients. The National Institutes of Health also offers practical guidance on differentiating a portion from a serving, controlling portion size (both at home and when eating out), and finding alternatives to salt when you want or need to season food.

Reviewing even just one or two of these resources can improve your knowledge about healthy eating habits. Since a balanced and tasty meal plan is a recipe for success, let’s make better nutrition our mantra. We can help our patients, and perhaps learn something ourselves!

As March arrives, we rejoice in the promise of spring sunlight and start planning ahead for summer and its associated clothing, which tends to be a bit more … revealing, shall we say. If we’re really motivated, we might dust off our (quickly forgotten) New Year’s weight-loss resolutions, adjusting our carb:veggie ratio to get beach-ready. Furthermore, March historically signified the start of farming season—making it a natural fit for National Nutrition Month.

In 1973, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) initiated a week-long campaign to educate the public about healthy eating, encouraging good dietary and exercise habits. The campaign became a month-long observance in 1980, in response to increased consumer interest in nutrition.¹ Since then, AND has produced videos and other materials to assist the public in making better food choices and adjusting meal plans to fit individual energy needs.

This guidance is needed more now than ever before. About 75% of Americans follow a diet that is low in fruits, vegetables, dairy, and oils (compared to the recommended values)—and most exceed the recommended allotment for added sugars, sodium, and saturated fats.² It’s no surprise, then, that two-thirds of US adults are either overweight or obese.²

It is imperative that we, as health care providers, provide our patients and their families with practical, evidence-based information about healthy food choices. But are we sufficiently educated to provide that guidance?

I admit, my confidence in my nutritional knowledge falls short of the mark. I vaguely recall nutrition being discussed in one of my basic nursing courses; diets designed for specific disease entities were introduced as I progressed in my education. But a specific nutrition course is not a requirement in the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education’s Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice—even though nutrition is directly linked to wellness and health promotion is an essential component of nursing practice.³ (This inconsistency in nutrition education holds true for our PA colleagues, as well.)

How, then, do we educate ourselves so that we can impart the necessary guidance to our patients? The plethora of articles—some more scholarly than others—on what we should and should not eat can be very confusing.

Generally, though, the soundest advice encourages a healthy lifestyle, with emphasis on consistent, enjoyable eating practices and regular physical activity. Of particular note: The word “diet” is not included in most guides. Rather, we are advised to make small changes to the way we think about eating.

Substituting fruit for added sugar, whole grains for refined grains, and oils for solid fats are just a few simple ways to transition to a healthier eating regimen.² Another adaptation is to plan out meals and snacks prior to food shopping; this not only prevents us from making poor choices and purchasing items based on impulse or hunger, but also decreases food waste. These comparatively small adjustments can make a real difference over time.

To help achieve the goal of a healthy lifestyle, AND offers the following suggestions:

• Include a variety of healthful foods from all food groups on a regular basis.
• Consider which food items you have on hand before buying more at the store.
• Buy only an amount that can be eaten within a few days (or stored in the freezer) and plan ways to use leftovers later in the week.
• Be mindful of portion sizes.
• Find activities you enjoy to keep you physically active throughout the week.⁴

We also have a resource at our fingertips that we often overlook: registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs). These professionals are educated specifically to provide counseling on food choices and can help clear the murky waters surrounding nutrition. An RDN can partner with a consumer to develop a safe, effective, sustainable eating plan that takes into consideration health status, lifestyle, and personal taste preferences.

In addition to RDN colleagues, there are trustworthy, easy-to-navigate websites that provide resources on nutrition and healthy eating. They also have tools we can provide to our patients and their families (see box). For example, ChooseMyPlate (www.choosemyplate.gov) is an interactive site based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that provides information on how much of each food group should be eaten each day. It also includes resources for planning well-balanced, healthy meals and a series of fact sheets with tips that can be useful for patients. The National Institutes of Health also offers practical guidance on differentiating a portion from a serving, controlling portion size (both at home and when eating out), and finding alternatives to salt when you want or need to season food.

Reviewing even just one or two of these resources can improve your knowledge about healthy eating habits. Since a balanced and tasty meal plan is a recipe for success, let’s make better nutrition our mantra. We can help our patients, and perhaps learn something ourselves!

As March arrives, we rejoice in the promise of spring sunlight and start planning ahead for summer and its associated clothing, which tends to be a bit more … revealing, shall we say. If we’re really motivated, we might dust off our (quickly forgotten) New Year’s weight-loss resolutions, adjusting our carb:veggie ratio to get beach-ready. Furthermore, March historically signified the start of farming season—making it a natural fit for National Nutrition Month.

In 1973, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) initiated a week-long campaign to educate the public about healthy eating, encouraging good dietary and exercise habits. The campaign became a month-long observance in 1980, in response to increased consumer interest in nutrition.¹ Since then, AND has produced videos and other materials to assist the public in making better food choices and adjusting meal plans to fit individual energy needs.

This guidance is needed more now than ever before. About 75% of Americans follow a diet that is low in fruits, vegetables, dairy, and oils (compared to the recommended values)—and most exceed the recommended allotment for added sugars, sodium, and saturated fats.² It’s no surprise, then, that two-thirds of US adults are either overweight or obese.²

It is imperative that we, as health care providers, provide our patients and their families with practical, evidence-based information about healthy food choices. But are we sufficiently educated to provide that guidance?

I admit, my confidence in my nutritional knowledge falls short of the mark. I vaguely recall nutrition being discussed in one of my basic nursing courses; diets designed for specific disease entities were introduced as I progressed in my education. But a specific nutrition course is not a requirement in the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education’s Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice—even though nutrition is directly linked to wellness and health promotion is an essential component of nursing practice.³ (This inconsistency in nutrition education holds true for our PA colleagues, as well.)

How, then, do we educate ourselves so that we can impart the necessary guidance to our patients? The plethora of articles—some more scholarly than others—on what we should and should not eat can be very confusing.

Generally, though, the soundest advice encourages a healthy lifestyle, with emphasis on consistent, enjoyable eating practices and regular physical activity. Of particular note: The word “diet” is not included in most guides. Rather, we are advised to make small changes to the way we think about eating.

Substituting fruit for added sugar, whole grains for refined grains, and oils for solid fats are just a few simple ways to transition to a healthier eating regimen.² Another adaptation is to plan out meals and snacks prior to food shopping; this not only prevents us from making poor choices and purchasing items based on impulse or hunger, but also decreases food waste. These comparatively small adjustments can make a real difference over time.

To help achieve the goal of a healthy lifestyle, AND offers the following suggestions:

• Include a variety of healthful foods from all food groups on a regular basis.
• Consider which food items you have on hand before buying more at the store.
• Buy only an amount that can be eaten within a few days (or stored in the freezer) and plan ways to use leftovers later in the week.
• Be mindful of portion sizes.
• Find activities you enjoy to keep you physically active throughout the week.⁴

We also have a resource at our fingertips that we often overlook: registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs). These professionals are educated specifically to provide counseling on food choices and can help clear the murky waters surrounding nutrition. An RDN can partner with a consumer to develop a safe, effective, sustainable eating plan that takes into consideration health status, lifestyle, and personal taste preferences.

In addition to RDN colleagues, there are trustworthy, easy-to-navigate websites that provide resources on nutrition and healthy eating. They also have tools we can provide to our patients and their families (see box). For example, ChooseMyPlate (www.choosemyplate.gov) is an interactive site based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that provides information on how much of each food group should be eaten each day. It also includes resources for planning well-balanced, healthy meals and a series of fact sheets with tips that can be useful for patients. The National Institutes of Health also offers practical guidance on differentiating a portion from a serving, controlling portion size (both at home and when eating out), and finding alternatives to salt when you want or need to season food.

Reviewing even just one or two of these resources can improve your knowledge about healthy eating habits. Since a balanced and tasty meal plan is a recipe for success, let’s make better nutrition our mantra. We can help our patients, and perhaps learn something ourselves!

The articles in this special issue reflect a number of emerging trends in federal practice. The first is that the optimal delivery of mental health clinical care as well as the conduct of cutting-edge clinical research are most often inter- and multidisciplinary collaborations. A background in public and military service instills the experience and training to maximize teamwork in the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS. Pharmacists, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, nurses, and others come together to advance the science and scholarship that are the backbone for building efficacious patient-centered health care. Just as important, most of these articles reflect a partnership between VA and academic medical centers. The knowledge and skill of each partner amplifies the other to produce novel insights, which can be readily translated into treatment progress that benefits patients.

A case in point: Neurology and psychiatry have historically been different disciplines. However, some thought leaders recently suggested that the explosion of neuroscience has narrowed the gap between the specialties to a single field, as demonstrated by Langevin and colleagues. The authors propose the use of deep brain stimulation to treat patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Deep brain stimulation is a process in which electrodes are inserted into targeted areas of the brain and alter the neural impulses and physiology to relieve neuropsychiatric symptoms and, thus, modulate neural structure and function.

Up to one-third of veterans with PTSD also may have a substance use disorder. Pary and colleagues review the research on another trend in mental health treatment that is fast becoming a best practice: the integrated, coordinated treatment of co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. This approach provides a comprehensive look at the diagnosis and treatment of depression and bipolar disorder coexistent with alcohol use disorder with both psycho- and pharmacotherapy.

Through its unique primary care psychiatry clinics, the VA has pioneered integrated care for individuals with serious mental illness and chronic medical conditions that may result in frequent hospitalization and increased overall health care utilization. Gill and colleagues emphasize the urgency and importance of these efforts given the increasing number of active-duty service members and veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and are diagnosed with mental and physical conditions. Their outcomes data suggest that directing outpatient resources to patients with specific demographic and clinical factors may be beneficial.

The challenges of providing team-based care to patients with mental health disorders is borne out in the research of Lee and colleagues. Their examination of the risk of hospitalization for patients with PTSD who have been treated with benzodiazepine and opioids is a reminder of the challenge of treating patients with multiple comorbidities. The authors caution that prescribers should “limit benzodiazepine and opioid use in this population and consider safer nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options when possible.”

Many of these trends coalesce in my discussion with Larry Davis, MD, Distinguished Professor of Neurology at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Chief of Neurology at the New Mexico VA Health Care System. Dr. Davis describes a successful teleneurology program that treats patients in underserved rural areas in New Mexico and Colorado. He also touts the benefits of teleneurology to address the shortage of neurologists. Many of the most common and serious neurologic conditions, such as epilepsy, Alzheimer, and Parkinson, are managed through a teleneurology program that includes education and support for patients and caregivers.

The articles in this special issue reflect a number of emerging trends in federal practice. The first is that the optimal delivery of mental health clinical care as well as the conduct of cutting-edge clinical research are most often inter- and multidisciplinary collaborations. A background in public and military service instills the experience and training to maximize teamwork in the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS. Pharmacists, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, nurses, and others come together to advance the science and scholarship that are the backbone for building efficacious patient-centered health care. Just as important, most of these articles reflect a partnership between VA and academic medical centers. The knowledge and skill of each partner amplifies the other to produce novel insights, which can be readily translated into treatment progress that benefits patients.

A case in point: Neurology and psychiatry have historically been different disciplines. However, some thought leaders recently suggested that the explosion of neuroscience has narrowed the gap between the specialties to a single field, as demonstrated by Langevin and colleagues. The authors propose the use of deep brain stimulation to treat patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Deep brain stimulation is a process in which electrodes are inserted into targeted areas of the brain and alter the neural impulses and physiology to relieve neuropsychiatric symptoms and, thus, modulate neural structure and function.

Up to one-third of veterans with PTSD also may have a substance use disorder. Pary and colleagues review the research on another trend in mental health treatment that is fast becoming a best practice: the integrated, coordinated treatment of co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. This approach provides a comprehensive look at the diagnosis and treatment of depression and bipolar disorder coexistent with alcohol use disorder with both psycho- and pharmacotherapy.

Through its unique primary care psychiatry clinics, the VA has pioneered integrated care for individuals with serious mental illness and chronic medical conditions that may result in frequent hospitalization and increased overall health care utilization. Gill and colleagues emphasize the urgency and importance of these efforts given the increasing number of active-duty service members and veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and are diagnosed with mental and physical conditions. Their outcomes data suggest that directing outpatient resources to patients with specific demographic and clinical factors may be beneficial.

The challenges of providing team-based care to patients with mental health disorders is borne out in the research of Lee and colleagues. Their examination of the risk of hospitalization for patients with PTSD who have been treated with benzodiazepine and opioids is a reminder of the challenge of treating patients with multiple comorbidities. The authors caution that prescribers should “limit benzodiazepine and opioid use in this population and consider safer nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options when possible.”

Many of these trends coalesce in my discussion with Larry Davis, MD, Distinguished Professor of Neurology at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Chief of Neurology at the New Mexico VA Health Care System. Dr. Davis describes a successful teleneurology program that treats patients in underserved rural areas in New Mexico and Colorado. He also touts the benefits of teleneurology to address the shortage of neurologists. Many of the most common and serious neurologic conditions, such as epilepsy, Alzheimer, and Parkinson, are managed through a teleneurology program that includes education and support for patients and caregivers.

The articles in this special issue reflect a number of emerging trends in federal practice. The first is that the optimal delivery of mental health clinical care as well as the conduct of cutting-edge clinical research are most often inter- and multidisciplinary collaborations. A background in public and military service instills the experience and training to maximize teamwork in the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS. Pharmacists, neuropsychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, nurses, and others come together to advance the science and scholarship that are the backbone for building efficacious patient-centered health care. Just as important, most of these articles reflect a partnership between VA and academic medical centers. The knowledge and skill of each partner amplifies the other to produce novel insights, which can be readily translated into treatment progress that benefits patients.

A case in point: Neurology and psychiatry have historically been different disciplines. However, some thought leaders recently suggested that the explosion of neuroscience has narrowed the gap between the specialties to a single field, as demonstrated by Langevin and colleagues. The authors propose the use of deep brain stimulation to treat patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Deep brain stimulation is a process in which electrodes are inserted into targeted areas of the brain and alter the neural impulses and physiology to relieve neuropsychiatric symptoms and, thus, modulate neural structure and function.

Up to one-third of veterans with PTSD also may have a substance use disorder. Pary and colleagues review the research on another trend in mental health treatment that is fast becoming a best practice: the integrated, coordinated treatment of co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. This approach provides a comprehensive look at the diagnosis and treatment of depression and bipolar disorder coexistent with alcohol use disorder with both psycho- and pharmacotherapy.

Through its unique primary care psychiatry clinics, the VA has pioneered integrated care for individuals with serious mental illness and chronic medical conditions that may result in frequent hospitalization and increased overall health care utilization. Gill and colleagues emphasize the urgency and importance of these efforts given the increasing number of active-duty service members and veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and are diagnosed with mental and physical conditions. Their outcomes data suggest that directing outpatient resources to patients with specific demographic and clinical factors may be beneficial.

The challenges of providing team-based care to patients with mental health disorders is borne out in the research of Lee and colleagues. Their examination of the risk of hospitalization for patients with PTSD who have been treated with benzodiazepine and opioids is a reminder of the challenge of treating patients with multiple comorbidities. The authors caution that prescribers should “limit benzodiazepine and opioid use in this population and consider safer nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options when possible.”

Many of these trends coalesce in my discussion with Larry Davis, MD, Distinguished Professor of Neurology at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Chief of Neurology at the New Mexico VA Health Care System. Dr. Davis describes a successful teleneurology program that treats patients in underserved rural areas in New Mexico and Colorado. He also touts the benefits of teleneurology to address the shortage of neurologists. Many of the most common and serious neurologic conditions, such as epilepsy, Alzheimer, and Parkinson, are managed through a teleneurology program that includes education and support for patients and caregivers.

The coming months will provide us a welcome relief from health care politics as we turn our attention to the science of medicine. Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) will occur from June 2 to 5 in Washington, DC. Major themes already are emerging and implications for our clinical practices are exciting. In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we summarize a presentation about the IBD medication pipeline given by Dr. Bill Sandborn (UCSD) at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^TM (a partnership between the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and AGA, in Las Vegas). The number of medications that will enter clinical practice is impressive and so is the variety of antigen targets. Over the last several decades, we have defined multiple inflammatory pathways that can lead to IBD and developed medications that modify abnormal immune responses. We are entering an era of precision medicine never before seen in our specialty. Most of these biological medications can be given orally or subcutaneously, precluding the need for infusion centers. I anticipate an enormous offering of IBD-related science at DDW^®.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

The coming months will provide us a welcome relief from health care politics as we turn our attention to the science of medicine. Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) will occur from June 2 to 5 in Washington, DC. Major themes already are emerging and implications for our clinical practices are exciting. In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we summarize a presentation about the IBD medication pipeline given by Dr. Bill Sandborn (UCSD) at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^TM (a partnership between the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and AGA, in Las Vegas). The number of medications that will enter clinical practice is impressive and so is the variety of antigen targets. Over the last several decades, we have defined multiple inflammatory pathways that can lead to IBD and developed medications that modify abnormal immune responses. We are entering an era of precision medicine never before seen in our specialty. Most of these biological medications can be given orally or subcutaneously, precluding the need for infusion centers. I anticipate an enormous offering of IBD-related science at DDW^®.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

The coming months will provide us a welcome relief from health care politics as we turn our attention to the science of medicine. Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) will occur from June 2 to 5 in Washington, DC. Major themes already are emerging and implications for our clinical practices are exciting. In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we summarize a presentation about the IBD medication pipeline given by Dr. Bill Sandborn (UCSD) at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^TM (a partnership between the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and AGA, in Las Vegas). The number of medications that will enter clinical practice is impressive and so is the variety of antigen targets. Over the last several decades, we have defined multiple inflammatory pathways that can lead to IBD and developed medications that modify abnormal immune responses. We are entering an era of precision medicine never before seen in our specialty. Most of these biological medications can be given orally or subcutaneously, precluding the need for infusion centers. I anticipate an enormous offering of IBD-related science at DDW^®.

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF

Editor in Chief

In recent years, the pace of the development of novel new treatments for brain disorders in both psychiatry and neurology, including psychiatric disorders, has been the subject of much worry and hand-wringing.¹

Some major pharmaceutical companies have stopped research programs in neuropsychiatry to focus on other, “easier” therapeutic areas where they think the biology is better understood and therefore drug development is more feasible.

However, I am now more optimistic than I have been in many years that we are on the verge of a promising era of pharmacotherapy that will usher in far better prevention, diagnosis, and management of neuropsychiatric disorders, and a better outcome for our patients. Why the optimism? There is a series of converging trends that justify it.

Funding for basic neuroscience research. Governments all over the world have woken up to the fact that brain disorders will account for the largest economic impact unless new treatments are developed. This has spurred multiple initiatives to better understand the underlying neurobiologic mechanisms of the brain in health and disease.²

Renewed enthusiasm for brain disorders from small pharmaceutical and mid-size biotechnology companies. While some of the larger pharmaceutical companies have withdrawn from pursuing new treatments for psychiatric disorders due to the need to satisfy “shareholders,” small and nimble biotechnology companies have stepped up, seeing an opportunity in a field that is not overcrowded and still has an extensive unmet need. These companies are developing truly novel treatments and approaches that can differentiate from current treatments. These include:

• rapid-acting antidepressants
• targeting specific symptom domains of psychiatric disorders, such as cognition, apathy, or anhedonia, that currently have no adequate or effective treatment
• novel therapeutic targets in a range of indications
• nonpharmacologic approaches.

Leading companies in this space include Allergan and Blackthorn Therapeutics. These companies and others have publicly discussed their commitment to developing new treatments for psychiatric disorders.

But large pharmaceutical companies should not be discounted. Examples of advances by larger companies include the recent FDA “breakthrough designation” for the development of balovaptan by Roche, a medication with the potential to improve “core social interaction and communication” in patients with autism, and the work Johnson & Johnson is conducting with S-ketamine for depression and acutely suicidal patients.

New scientific breakthroughs in areas such as synthetic biology, gene editing, nanotechnology, pluripotent cells, understanding the impact of the microbiome, and many other fields will dramatically accelerate the pace of scientific progress, allowing new treatment approaches not previously imagined.

New technologies. An array of new technologies—such as biosensors, artificial intelligence and machine learning, augmented and virtual reality, and other digital health tools—will impact every step of the “patient journey.” These will enable earlier detection and diagnosis, ongoing real-time assessment of symptoms, and more objective assessments, and they will facilitate the delivery of, and assessment of adherence to, treatments such as pharmacotherapy, neuro­modulation, video games, apps, or a combination of these modalities.

Until recently, the idea of a video game or augmented reality glasses being viewed as serious and validated treatment modalities would have been considered science fiction. New ways of assessing patients—including voice, typing, activity on smartphones, diurnal rhythm, etc.—have the potential to dramatically improve the information clinicians will have about patient functioning in the real world. Another area where new technologies may eventually have a huge impact is in facilitating the prediction of suicide attempts.³

New digital therapeutics companies. It is no coincidence that the digital therapeutics companies that have been making the news and obtaining FDA approvals, such as Proteus Digital Health, Pear Therapeutics, Akili, and Click Therapeutics, are all addressing brain disorders.

Patient empowerment. With these new tools, the patient can become a true partner in the therapeutic alliance more than ever before. Patients can have an active role in diagnosis and be active participants in many new treatment modalities. There will be many new ways for patients to share their data to improve their care and to advance the science of these tools. Utilizing blockchain protocols, patients will have more control over how and with whom their data is shared, and even be compensated for it.

This may all seem like a medical “brave new world,” and perhaps a long way away. However, I believe these changes are happening at an exponential rate. It is hard to believe that common technological tools such as Google Maps, Gmail, and the smartphone first became available only a few years ago. The merging of biology and technology will have profound effects, and will be recognized as the momentous scientific achievement of the early 21st century.

Unlike clunky technologies such as electronic medical records, which have in fact made the clinician–patient experience worse, I believe that the technologies I describe above will enhance and augment the clinician–patient relationship. As health care practitioners, we need to be open to new technologies and ways of assessing and treating our patients while making sure our clinical insights and experience inform the development of these new technologies.

Let’s buckle up. Life in psychiatry is going to get more interesting than ever!

In recent years, the pace of the development of novel new treatments for brain disorders in both psychiatry and neurology, including psychiatric disorders, has been the subject of much worry and hand-wringing.¹

Some major pharmaceutical companies have stopped research programs in neuropsychiatry to focus on other, “easier” therapeutic areas where they think the biology is better understood and therefore drug development is more feasible.

However, I am now more optimistic than I have been in many years that we are on the verge of a promising era of pharmacotherapy that will usher in far better prevention, diagnosis, and management of neuropsychiatric disorders, and a better outcome for our patients. Why the optimism? There is a series of converging trends that justify it.

Funding for basic neuroscience research. Governments all over the world have woken up to the fact that brain disorders will account for the largest economic impact unless new treatments are developed. This has spurred multiple initiatives to better understand the underlying neurobiologic mechanisms of the brain in health and disease.²

Renewed enthusiasm for brain disorders from small pharmaceutical and mid-size biotechnology companies. While some of the larger pharmaceutical companies have withdrawn from pursuing new treatments for psychiatric disorders due to the need to satisfy “shareholders,” small and nimble biotechnology companies have stepped up, seeing an opportunity in a field that is not overcrowded and still has an extensive unmet need. These companies are developing truly novel treatments and approaches that can differentiate from current treatments. These include:

• rapid-acting antidepressants
• targeting specific symptom domains of psychiatric disorders, such as cognition, apathy, or anhedonia, that currently have no adequate or effective treatment
• novel therapeutic targets in a range of indications
• nonpharmacologic approaches.

Leading companies in this space include Allergan and Blackthorn Therapeutics. These companies and others have publicly discussed their commitment to developing new treatments for psychiatric disorders.

But large pharmaceutical companies should not be discounted. Examples of advances by larger companies include the recent FDA “breakthrough designation” for the development of balovaptan by Roche, a medication with the potential to improve “core social interaction and communication” in patients with autism, and the work Johnson & Johnson is conducting with S-ketamine for depression and acutely suicidal patients.

New scientific breakthroughs in areas such as synthetic biology, gene editing, nanotechnology, pluripotent cells, understanding the impact of the microbiome, and many other fields will dramatically accelerate the pace of scientific progress, allowing new treatment approaches not previously imagined.

New technologies. An array of new technologies—such as biosensors, artificial intelligence and machine learning, augmented and virtual reality, and other digital health tools—will impact every step of the “patient journey.” These will enable earlier detection and diagnosis, ongoing real-time assessment of symptoms, and more objective assessments, and they will facilitate the delivery of, and assessment of adherence to, treatments such as pharmacotherapy, neuro­modulation, video games, apps, or a combination of these modalities.

Until recently, the idea of a video game or augmented reality glasses being viewed as serious and validated treatment modalities would have been considered science fiction. New ways of assessing patients—including voice, typing, activity on smartphones, diurnal rhythm, etc.—have the potential to dramatically improve the information clinicians will have about patient functioning in the real world. Another area where new technologies may eventually have a huge impact is in facilitating the prediction of suicide attempts.³

New digital therapeutics companies. It is no coincidence that the digital therapeutics companies that have been making the news and obtaining FDA approvals, such as Proteus Digital Health, Pear Therapeutics, Akili, and Click Therapeutics, are all addressing brain disorders.

Patient empowerment. With these new tools, the patient can become a true partner in the therapeutic alliance more than ever before. Patients can have an active role in diagnosis and be active participants in many new treatment modalities. There will be many new ways for patients to share their data to improve their care and to advance the science of these tools. Utilizing blockchain protocols, patients will have more control over how and with whom their data is shared, and even be compensated for it.

This may all seem like a medical “brave new world,” and perhaps a long way away. However, I believe these changes are happening at an exponential rate. It is hard to believe that common technological tools such as Google Maps, Gmail, and the smartphone first became available only a few years ago. The merging of biology and technology will have profound effects, and will be recognized as the momentous scientific achievement of the early 21st century.

Unlike clunky technologies such as electronic medical records, which have in fact made the clinician–patient experience worse, I believe that the technologies I describe above will enhance and augment the clinician–patient relationship. As health care practitioners, we need to be open to new technologies and ways of assessing and treating our patients while making sure our clinical insights and experience inform the development of these new technologies.

Let’s buckle up. Life in psychiatry is going to get more interesting than ever!

In recent years, the pace of the development of novel new treatments for brain disorders in both psychiatry and neurology, including psychiatric disorders, has been the subject of much worry and hand-wringing.¹

Some major pharmaceutical companies have stopped research programs in neuropsychiatry to focus on other, “easier” therapeutic areas where they think the biology is better understood and therefore drug development is more feasible.

However, I am now more optimistic than I have been in many years that we are on the verge of a promising era of pharmacotherapy that will usher in far better prevention, diagnosis, and management of neuropsychiatric disorders, and a better outcome for our patients. Why the optimism? There is a series of converging trends that justify it.

Funding for basic neuroscience research. Governments all over the world have woken up to the fact that brain disorders will account for the largest economic impact unless new treatments are developed. This has spurred multiple initiatives to better understand the underlying neurobiologic mechanisms of the brain in health and disease.²

Renewed enthusiasm for brain disorders from small pharmaceutical and mid-size biotechnology companies. While some of the larger pharmaceutical companies have withdrawn from pursuing new treatments for psychiatric disorders due to the need to satisfy “shareholders,” small and nimble biotechnology companies have stepped up, seeing an opportunity in a field that is not overcrowded and still has an extensive unmet need. These companies are developing truly novel treatments and approaches that can differentiate from current treatments. These include:

• rapid-acting antidepressants
• targeting specific symptom domains of psychiatric disorders, such as cognition, apathy, or anhedonia, that currently have no adequate or effective treatment
• novel therapeutic targets in a range of indications
• nonpharmacologic approaches.

Leading companies in this space include Allergan and Blackthorn Therapeutics. These companies and others have publicly discussed their commitment to developing new treatments for psychiatric disorders.

But large pharmaceutical companies should not be discounted. Examples of advances by larger companies include the recent FDA “breakthrough designation” for the development of balovaptan by Roche, a medication with the potential to improve “core social interaction and communication” in patients with autism, and the work Johnson & Johnson is conducting with S-ketamine for depression and acutely suicidal patients.

New scientific breakthroughs in areas such as synthetic biology, gene editing, nanotechnology, pluripotent cells, understanding the impact of the microbiome, and many other fields will dramatically accelerate the pace of scientific progress, allowing new treatment approaches not previously imagined.

New technologies. An array of new technologies—such as biosensors, artificial intelligence and machine learning, augmented and virtual reality, and other digital health tools—will impact every step of the “patient journey.” These will enable earlier detection and diagnosis, ongoing real-time assessment of symptoms, and more objective assessments, and they will facilitate the delivery of, and assessment of adherence to, treatments such as pharmacotherapy, neuro­modulation, video games, apps, or a combination of these modalities.

Until recently, the idea of a video game or augmented reality glasses being viewed as serious and validated treatment modalities would have been considered science fiction. New ways of assessing patients—including voice, typing, activity on smartphones, diurnal rhythm, etc.—have the potential to dramatically improve the information clinicians will have about patient functioning in the real world. Another area where new technologies may eventually have a huge impact is in facilitating the prediction of suicide attempts.³

New digital therapeutics companies. It is no coincidence that the digital therapeutics companies that have been making the news and obtaining FDA approvals, such as Proteus Digital Health, Pear Therapeutics, Akili, and Click Therapeutics, are all addressing brain disorders.

Patient empowerment. With these new tools, the patient can become a true partner in the therapeutic alliance more than ever before. Patients can have an active role in diagnosis and be active participants in many new treatment modalities. There will be many new ways for patients to share their data to improve their care and to advance the science of these tools. Utilizing blockchain protocols, patients will have more control over how and with whom their data is shared, and even be compensated for it.

This may all seem like a medical “brave new world,” and perhaps a long way away. However, I believe these changes are happening at an exponential rate. It is hard to believe that common technological tools such as Google Maps, Gmail, and the smartphone first became available only a few years ago. The merging of biology and technology will have profound effects, and will be recognized as the momentous scientific achievement of the early 21st century.

Unlike clunky technologies such as electronic medical records, which have in fact made the clinician–patient experience worse, I believe that the technologies I describe above will enhance and augment the clinician–patient relationship. As health care practitioners, we need to be open to new technologies and ways of assessing and treating our patients while making sure our clinical insights and experience inform the development of these new technologies.

Let’s buckle up. Life in psychiatry is going to get more interesting than ever!

“It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience.”
- Immanuel Kant

Medicine, a highly experiential profession, is constantly evolving. The consistency of change and the psychiatrist’s inherent wonder offers a paradoxical sense of comfort and conundrum.

As students, we look to our predecessors, associations, and peers to master concepts both concrete and abstract. And once we achieve competence at understanding mechanisms, applying biopsychosocial formulations, and effectively teaching what we’ve learned—everything changes!

We journey through a new era of medicine together. With burgeoning technology, intense politics, and confounding social media, we are undergoing new applications, hurdles to health care, and personal exposure to extremes that have never been experienced before. The landscape of psychiatric practice is changing. Its transformation inherently challenges our existing practices and standards.

It wasn’t too long ago that classroom fodder included how to deal with seeing your patient at a cocktail party. Contemporary discussions are more likely to address the patient who follows you on Twitter (and whom you follow back). Long ago are the days of educating students through a didactic model. Learning now occurs in collaborative group settings with a focus on the practical and hands-on experience. Budding psychiatrists are interested these days in talking about setting up their own apps, establishing a start-up company for health care, working on policy reform, and innovating new approaches to achieve social justice.

A history of challenge and change

Developing variables and expectations in this Millennial Age makes it an exciting time for psychiatrists to explore, adapt, and lead into the future. Fortunately, the field has had ample practice with challenge and changes. Social constructs of how individuals with mental illness were treated altered with William Battie, an English physician whose 1758 Treatise on Madness called for treatments to be utilized on rich and poor mental patients alike in asylums.¹ Remember the days of chaining patients to bedposts on psychiatric wards? Of course not! Such archaic practices thankfully disappeared, due in large part to French physician Philippe Pinel. Patient care has evolved to encompass empathy, rights, and dignity.²

German physician Johann Christian Reil, who coined the term “psychiatry” more than 200 years ago, asserted that mental illness should be treated by the most highly qualified physicians.³ Such thinking seems obvious in 2018, but before Reil, the mental and physical states were seen as unrelated.

Modern psychiatry has certainly come a long way.⁴ We recognize mental health as being essential to overall health. Medications have evolved beyond lithium, chlorpromazine, and fluoxetine. We now have quarterly injectable antipsychotics and pills that patients can swallow and actually be monitored by their clinicians!⁴

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published multiple iterations of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since its inception in 1968.⁵ And with those revisions have come changes that most contemporary colleagues could only describe as self-evident—such as the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.

Despite these advances and the advent of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008, experience has shown us that some things have seen little progress. Reil, who saw a nexus between mental and physical health, launched an anti-stigma campaign more than 200 years ago. This begs a question to colleagues: How far have we come? Or better yet, capitalizing on our knowledge, experience, and hopes: What else can we do?

The essential interaction between mental, chemical, and physical domains has given rise to psychiatry and its many subspecialties. Among them is forensic psychiatry, which deals with the overlap of mental health and legal matters.⁶

While often recognized for its relation to criminology, forensic psychiatry encompasses the entirety of legal mental health matters.⁷ These are things that the daily practitioner faces on a routine basis.

My mentor, Dr. Douglas Mossman, author of Current Psychiatry’s Malpractice Rx department, passed away on January 4, 2018. Dr. Mossman emphasized to his trainees that above all else, understanding forensic matters simply makes one a better psychiatrist. Legal matters and psychiatry go hand-in-hand. Involuntary hospitalization, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act violations, licensure boards, telepsychiatry, guardianship, and informed consent are just a few areas that psychiatrists interface with routinely.

A new department for a new era

The world is changing very rapidly, and we face new dilemmas in the midst of trying to uphold our duties to patients and the profession. There are emerging domains that psychiatrists will experience for the first time—leaving us with more questions than direction. And that is the impetus for this new department, Psychiatry 2.0.

The ever-evolving Internet opens doors for psychiatrists to access and educate a larger audience. It also provides a tool for psychiatrists to keep a web-based presence, something essential for competitive business practices to stay relevant. We are languishing in a political climate that challenges our sense of duty to the public, which often is in contrast with the ethical principles of our association. Technology also poses problems, whether it’s tracking our patients through the pills they ingest, following them on an app, or relying on data from wearable devices in lieu of a patient’s report. All of this suggests a potential for progress as well as problems.

The goal of Psychiatry 2.0 is to experience new challenges together. As Department Editor, I will cover an array of cutting-edge and controversial topics. Continuing with Dr. Mossman’s teachings—that forensic understanding enhances the clinical practice—this department will routinely combine evidence-based information with legal concepts.

Each article in Psychiatry 2.0 will be divided into 3 parts, focusing on a clinician’s dilemma, a duty, and a discussion. The dilemma will be relatable to the clinician in everyday practice. A practical and evidence-based approach will be taken to expound upon our duty as physicians. And finally, there will be discussion about where the field is going, and how it will likely change. In its quarterly publication, Psychiatry 2.0 will explore a diverse range of topics, including technology, social media, stigma, social justice, and politics.

In my role as Department Editor, I find myself already reflecting on the experience, wisdom, compassion, encouragement, and legacy of Dr. Mossman. A distinguished psychiatrist, gifted musician, and inspiring mentor and academician, Dr. Mossman embodied knowledge, creativity, and devotion.

Among Dr. Mossman’s many accolades, including more than 180 authored publications, he was recipient of the Guttmacher Award (2008, the APA) and Golden Apple (2017, the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law). Dr. Mossman was further known to many as a mentor and friend. He was generous with his experiences as a highly accomplished physician and thoughtful in his teachings and publications, leaving an enduring legacy.

Remembering Dr. Mossman’s sage voice and articulate writings will be essential to moving forward in this modern age of psychiatry, as we experience new dilemmas and opportunities.

“It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience.”
- Immanuel Kant

Medicine, a highly experiential profession, is constantly evolving. The consistency of change and the psychiatrist’s inherent wonder offers a paradoxical sense of comfort and conundrum.

As students, we look to our predecessors, associations, and peers to master concepts both concrete and abstract. And once we achieve competence at understanding mechanisms, applying biopsychosocial formulations, and effectively teaching what we’ve learned—everything changes!

We journey through a new era of medicine together. With burgeoning technology, intense politics, and confounding social media, we are undergoing new applications, hurdles to health care, and personal exposure to extremes that have never been experienced before. The landscape of psychiatric practice is changing. Its transformation inherently challenges our existing practices and standards.

It wasn’t too long ago that classroom fodder included how to deal with seeing your patient at a cocktail party. Contemporary discussions are more likely to address the patient who follows you on Twitter (and whom you follow back). Long ago are the days of educating students through a didactic model. Learning now occurs in collaborative group settings with a focus on the practical and hands-on experience. Budding psychiatrists are interested these days in talking about setting up their own apps, establishing a start-up company for health care, working on policy reform, and innovating new approaches to achieve social justice.

A history of challenge and change

Developing variables and expectations in this Millennial Age makes it an exciting time for psychiatrists to explore, adapt, and lead into the future. Fortunately, the field has had ample practice with challenge and changes. Social constructs of how individuals with mental illness were treated altered with William Battie, an English physician whose 1758 Treatise on Madness called for treatments to be utilized on rich and poor mental patients alike in asylums.¹ Remember the days of chaining patients to bedposts on psychiatric wards? Of course not! Such archaic practices thankfully disappeared, due in large part to French physician Philippe Pinel. Patient care has evolved to encompass empathy, rights, and dignity.²

German physician Johann Christian Reil, who coined the term “psychiatry” more than 200 years ago, asserted that mental illness should be treated by the most highly qualified physicians.³ Such thinking seems obvious in 2018, but before Reil, the mental and physical states were seen as unrelated.

Modern psychiatry has certainly come a long way.⁴ We recognize mental health as being essential to overall health. Medications have evolved beyond lithium, chlorpromazine, and fluoxetine. We now have quarterly injectable antipsychotics and pills that patients can swallow and actually be monitored by their clinicians!⁴

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published multiple iterations of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since its inception in 1968.⁵ And with those revisions have come changes that most contemporary colleagues could only describe as self-evident—such as the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.

Despite these advances and the advent of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008, experience has shown us that some things have seen little progress. Reil, who saw a nexus between mental and physical health, launched an anti-stigma campaign more than 200 years ago. This begs a question to colleagues: How far have we come? Or better yet, capitalizing on our knowledge, experience, and hopes: What else can we do?

The essential interaction between mental, chemical, and physical domains has given rise to psychiatry and its many subspecialties. Among them is forensic psychiatry, which deals with the overlap of mental health and legal matters.⁶

While often recognized for its relation to criminology, forensic psychiatry encompasses the entirety of legal mental health matters.⁷ These are things that the daily practitioner faces on a routine basis.

My mentor, Dr. Douglas Mossman, author of Current Psychiatry’s Malpractice Rx department, passed away on January 4, 2018. Dr. Mossman emphasized to his trainees that above all else, understanding forensic matters simply makes one a better psychiatrist. Legal matters and psychiatry go hand-in-hand. Involuntary hospitalization, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act violations, licensure boards, telepsychiatry, guardianship, and informed consent are just a few areas that psychiatrists interface with routinely.

A new department for a new era

The world is changing very rapidly, and we face new dilemmas in the midst of trying to uphold our duties to patients and the profession. There are emerging domains that psychiatrists will experience for the first time—leaving us with more questions than direction. And that is the impetus for this new department, Psychiatry 2.0.

The ever-evolving Internet opens doors for psychiatrists to access and educate a larger audience. It also provides a tool for psychiatrists to keep a web-based presence, something essential for competitive business practices to stay relevant. We are languishing in a political climate that challenges our sense of duty to the public, which often is in contrast with the ethical principles of our association. Technology also poses problems, whether it’s tracking our patients through the pills they ingest, following them on an app, or relying on data from wearable devices in lieu of a patient’s report. All of this suggests a potential for progress as well as problems.

The goal of Psychiatry 2.0 is to experience new challenges together. As Department Editor, I will cover an array of cutting-edge and controversial topics. Continuing with Dr. Mossman’s teachings—that forensic understanding enhances the clinical practice—this department will routinely combine evidence-based information with legal concepts.

Each article in Psychiatry 2.0 will be divided into 3 parts, focusing on a clinician’s dilemma, a duty, and a discussion. The dilemma will be relatable to the clinician in everyday practice. A practical and evidence-based approach will be taken to expound upon our duty as physicians. And finally, there will be discussion about where the field is going, and how it will likely change. In its quarterly publication, Psychiatry 2.0 will explore a diverse range of topics, including technology, social media, stigma, social justice, and politics.

In my role as Department Editor, I find myself already reflecting on the experience, wisdom, compassion, encouragement, and legacy of Dr. Mossman. A distinguished psychiatrist, gifted musician, and inspiring mentor and academician, Dr. Mossman embodied knowledge, creativity, and devotion.

Among Dr. Mossman’s many accolades, including more than 180 authored publications, he was recipient of the Guttmacher Award (2008, the APA) and Golden Apple (2017, the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law). Dr. Mossman was further known to many as a mentor and friend. He was generous with his experiences as a highly accomplished physician and thoughtful in his teachings and publications, leaving an enduring legacy.

Remembering Dr. Mossman’s sage voice and articulate writings will be essential to moving forward in this modern age of psychiatry, as we experience new dilemmas and opportunities.

“It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience.”
- Immanuel Kant

Medicine, a highly experiential profession, is constantly evolving. The consistency of change and the psychiatrist’s inherent wonder offers a paradoxical sense of comfort and conundrum.

As students, we look to our predecessors, associations, and peers to master concepts both concrete and abstract. And once we achieve competence at understanding mechanisms, applying biopsychosocial formulations, and effectively teaching what we’ve learned—everything changes!

We journey through a new era of medicine together. With burgeoning technology, intense politics, and confounding social media, we are undergoing new applications, hurdles to health care, and personal exposure to extremes that have never been experienced before. The landscape of psychiatric practice is changing. Its transformation inherently challenges our existing practices and standards.

It wasn’t too long ago that classroom fodder included how to deal with seeing your patient at a cocktail party. Contemporary discussions are more likely to address the patient who follows you on Twitter (and whom you follow back). Long ago are the days of educating students through a didactic model. Learning now occurs in collaborative group settings with a focus on the practical and hands-on experience. Budding psychiatrists are interested these days in talking about setting up their own apps, establishing a start-up company for health care, working on policy reform, and innovating new approaches to achieve social justice.

A history of challenge and change

Developing variables and expectations in this Millennial Age makes it an exciting time for psychiatrists to explore, adapt, and lead into the future. Fortunately, the field has had ample practice with challenge and changes. Social constructs of how individuals with mental illness were treated altered with William Battie, an English physician whose 1758 Treatise on Madness called for treatments to be utilized on rich and poor mental patients alike in asylums.¹ Remember the days of chaining patients to bedposts on psychiatric wards? Of course not! Such archaic practices thankfully disappeared, due in large part to French physician Philippe Pinel. Patient care has evolved to encompass empathy, rights, and dignity.²

German physician Johann Christian Reil, who coined the term “psychiatry” more than 200 years ago, asserted that mental illness should be treated by the most highly qualified physicians.³ Such thinking seems obvious in 2018, but before Reil, the mental and physical states were seen as unrelated.

Modern psychiatry has certainly come a long way.⁴ We recognize mental health as being essential to overall health. Medications have evolved beyond lithium, chlorpromazine, and fluoxetine. We now have quarterly injectable antipsychotics and pills that patients can swallow and actually be monitored by their clinicians!⁴

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published multiple iterations of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since its inception in 1968.⁵ And with those revisions have come changes that most contemporary colleagues could only describe as self-evident—such as the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.

Despite these advances and the advent of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008, experience has shown us that some things have seen little progress. Reil, who saw a nexus between mental and physical health, launched an anti-stigma campaign more than 200 years ago. This begs a question to colleagues: How far have we come? Or better yet, capitalizing on our knowledge, experience, and hopes: What else can we do?

The essential interaction between mental, chemical, and physical domains has given rise to psychiatry and its many subspecialties. Among them is forensic psychiatry, which deals with the overlap of mental health and legal matters.⁶

While often recognized for its relation to criminology, forensic psychiatry encompasses the entirety of legal mental health matters.⁷ These are things that the daily practitioner faces on a routine basis.

My mentor, Dr. Douglas Mossman, author of Current Psychiatry’s Malpractice Rx department, passed away on January 4, 2018. Dr. Mossman emphasized to his trainees that above all else, understanding forensic matters simply makes one a better psychiatrist. Legal matters and psychiatry go hand-in-hand. Involuntary hospitalization, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act violations, licensure boards, telepsychiatry, guardianship, and informed consent are just a few areas that psychiatrists interface with routinely.

A new department for a new era

The world is changing very rapidly, and we face new dilemmas in the midst of trying to uphold our duties to patients and the profession. There are emerging domains that psychiatrists will experience for the first time—leaving us with more questions than direction. And that is the impetus for this new department, Psychiatry 2.0.

The ever-evolving Internet opens doors for psychiatrists to access and educate a larger audience. It also provides a tool for psychiatrists to keep a web-based presence, something essential for competitive business practices to stay relevant. We are languishing in a political climate that challenges our sense of duty to the public, which often is in contrast with the ethical principles of our association. Technology also poses problems, whether it’s tracking our patients through the pills they ingest, following them on an app, or relying on data from wearable devices in lieu of a patient’s report. All of this suggests a potential for progress as well as problems.

The goal of Psychiatry 2.0 is to experience new challenges together. As Department Editor, I will cover an array of cutting-edge and controversial topics. Continuing with Dr. Mossman’s teachings—that forensic understanding enhances the clinical practice—this department will routinely combine evidence-based information with legal concepts.

Each article in Psychiatry 2.0 will be divided into 3 parts, focusing on a clinician’s dilemma, a duty, and a discussion. The dilemma will be relatable to the clinician in everyday practice. A practical and evidence-based approach will be taken to expound upon our duty as physicians. And finally, there will be discussion about where the field is going, and how it will likely change. In its quarterly publication, Psychiatry 2.0 will explore a diverse range of topics, including technology, social media, stigma, social justice, and politics.

In my role as Department Editor, I find myself already reflecting on the experience, wisdom, compassion, encouragement, and legacy of Dr. Mossman. A distinguished psychiatrist, gifted musician, and inspiring mentor and academician, Dr. Mossman embodied knowledge, creativity, and devotion.

Among Dr. Mossman’s many accolades, including more than 180 authored publications, he was recipient of the Guttmacher Award (2008, the APA) and Golden Apple (2017, the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law). Dr. Mossman was further known to many as a mentor and friend. He was generous with his experiences as a highly accomplished physician and thoughtful in his teachings and publications, leaving an enduring legacy.

Remembering Dr. Mossman’s sage voice and articulate writings will be essential to moving forward in this modern age of psychiatry, as we experience new dilemmas and opportunities.