Commentary

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Partridge: We’re here today to have a conversation about the unique or age-specific issues that face our young patients and survivors with breast cancer.

Olivia, let’s get started. What kinds of things do we need to think about when we’re seeing a young patient in clinic, beyond the usual things we think about for patients with breast cancer?

Dr. Pagani: The idea of selecting age as a determinant of care of young women is because they have specific issues, which are different from older, premenopausal patients but also older patients in general. We need to take care of many things, which can go from their job, family, fertility, and all these things are specific to these women and can impact their treatment, survivorship issues, side effects, and long-term problems. It’s a different world, compared with other patients with breast cancer.

Dr. Partridge: One of the areas that you and I have been very deep in the weeds in is the fertility issues. That’s obviously one of the things that’s pretty age-specific. There are some new data around that that we’re excited about. What do we think about when we think about trying to have a pregnancy or not after a breast cancer diagnosis?

Dr. Pagani: Yeah. I think it’s great times for that because we succeeded in building up a very important trial, which broke a taboo that was there for many, many decades: You had breast cancer so forget your pregnancy desire.

Despite many retrospective data from many groups that suggested pregnancy after breast cancer was not detrimental, there were so many obstacles for these women to address their pregnancy desire. I think we succeeded in explaining and showing in a quite solid way that if you desire a baby after breast cancer, you can try to have him or her.

Dr. Partridge: This was called the POSITIVE trial, with early findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine this past year, which was very exciting. Let’s dig a little deeper into that. Is this relevant for all patients with breast cancer or select patients with breast cancer who want to get pregnant?

Dr. Pagani: The accrual of the trial was open to all patients with stage I-III disease, but the majority of the patients were low risk, which means that the majority were node negative with small tumors. I think, so far, we can say that in low-risk women, pregnancy after breast cancer can be discussed and planned.

Summarizing, I think the evidence is for low-risk patients with early breast cancer. A minority had huge tumors or node-positive disease.

Dr. Partridge: It’s nice to be able to have these data to say a temporary interruption of endocrine therapy – not coming off forever, getting back on – was not associated with any worsening in terms of their breast cancer events in the future, which is great news for the women who are diagnosed when they’re trying to get pregnant and build their families or not having completed their families. It’s been fantastic.

What about for our patients with advanced disease who come in, and we’re treating them more to try and manage the cancer and improve their survival and quality of life, but cure may not be the goal. How do we manage the fertility issues for them?

Dr. Pagani: This is, I think, still an open issue despite overall survival for many women with advanced disease, especially HER2 positive or endocrine responsive; it is improving and it’s getting better and better. There are few women with oligometastatic disease that can be cured.

We are not yet there. At the Advanced Breast Cancer conference, we started to open the door to say that fertility should be discussed with patients with advanced breast cancer as well. We cannot recommend to patients with advanced breast cancer to pursue a pregnancy.

We have no data. For sure, this needs to be taken into account and discussed openly with all the patients who desire to discuss this.

Dr. Partridge: Yes. To help people to either grieve their losses or find alternative ways to build their family, I think, is something that we focus on.

How to optimize the plan of care for young patients

Dr. Partridge: Shifting gears into the psychosocial, we know that our young women of all stages have a harder time adjusting to a breast cancer diagnosis for good reason. It’s not normative at all to be dealing with a lot of the slings and arrows that our young women deal with at the age that they do. How do you manage that in your clinic, Olivia?

Dr. Pagani: Well, I think it’s always tough. One of the problems, which is also true for early breast cancer in general, which I think is common to you as well, is that in our society many women get breast cancer before even having thought of their family planning. That’s many of them in our reality.

In other countries, maybe they have already two to three children. In our countries, they are aged 30-35 years with no children, no stable relationship, and then are faced with all these things, and their pregnancy desire can be blown up because they understand there is no time, especially if they are metastatic. This can be devastating.

We are not very good at that yet. I think we need to develop better tools, better competence, and knowledge to support them to this extent as well.

Dr. Partridge: I know that whether people want kids or not, the diagnosis of breast cancer has financial toxicity and the inconvenience of going through this kind of experience while managing a busy life. Many of our patients, especially our young patients, are trying to develop their careers, to graduate from schools, and to grow a nest egg. They’re not retired yet, on average.

I agree that we have a large amount of work to do. The one thing I try and do is always bring in our social workers and our psychosocial supportive care providers for our young patients; not that I don’t bring them in for everybody that needs them, but our young patients on average seem to need them a little bit more just because it can be just so hard on them from a psychosocial and emotional standpoint, don’t you think?

Dr. Pagani: Yes, I think so. Do you have any specific program going on at Harvard?

Dr. Partridge: We do. We’ve built a program for young women that focuses on their unique and specific needs that capitalizes on groups that are already there. We have a social work department. We just have smoothed the pathway, and we send our young people in there more quickly and have some dedicated support groups and one-to-one interventions where patients can guide other young patients. We’ve built out the supportive care for these young patients and programming.

The other big area we’ve developed that’s not unique to young age but certainly enhanced in our young patients is genetics. We have a big genetic component at our cancer center. The young patients, more so than any other group, need to have the genetic counseling and the genetic testing not only to know about future risks and about their families but also to inform their treatment decisions these days. Do you want to comment on that?

Dr. Pagani: Yes, of course. Genetic counseling, especially for the most common BRCA1 and BRCA2, can change their local treatment (e.g., bilateral mastectomy instead of conservative surgery) but they have also to take care of their ovaries. They need to think of prophylactic oophorectomy, which makes fertility and pregnancy even more complicated. For them, it’s much more complex to address everything.

I think it’s really very complex, and I think we need a better understanding of all the nuances. Sometimes, we really do not consider, as you mentioned, that not every woman desires to have a baby.

The occurrence of breast cancer can wake up a desire that was not conscious but becomes conscious because you feel that you will not be able to do that. With the social support, the psychological support, and support groups – we have a very strong breast cancer support group for younger women — they could face these things. The young women support group was supportive of the POSITIVE trial: they helped to develop and financed a video, which was very helpful to promote POSITIVE.

I think that having a relationship or a network between patients, health professionals, social workers, and psychologists can help everyone, including those who want to become mothers, those who cannot, and those who do not want to.

Dr. Partridge: I think that’s great, Olivia. I think you rounded it out by just shining a light on these issues for our young patients and elevating it to being okay to talk about these issues. I think historically, it’s been: “You’ve got breast cancer, forget about this. We just need to get you to a better survival.”

We’re increasingly recognizing for patients of all ages, but particularly our young patients, that just surviving through breast cancer or cancer in general is not enough. We need to help people live the best and fullest life possible in their survivorship.
 

Education and communication: Key aspects moving forward

Dr. Pagani: I think another issue we need really to improve is health professional competence and knowledge. After you presented the POSITIVE trial in San Antonio, I had many calls with patients. They told me, “Well, I had this information, but my gynecologist, my oncologist, or my general practitioner still discouraged me.” This is a great barrier.

I think we need to do more to teach the health professionals. Otherwise, what we do is never enough because it will be blocked. They are scared and they do not want to go against their doctors. I think this is a very big conflict.

Dr. Partridge: That’s a really important point, and I appreciate you bringing it up. We as clinicians and educators who are building the research base need to really get it out there.

Dr. Pagani is a professor at the University of Geneva. Dr. Partridge is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of clinical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston. Dr. Pagani reported conflicts of interest with PRIME, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Debiopharm. Dr. Partridge reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Partridge: We’re here today to have a conversation about the unique or age-specific issues that face our young patients and survivors with breast cancer.

Olivia, let’s get started. What kinds of things do we need to think about when we’re seeing a young patient in clinic, beyond the usual things we think about for patients with breast cancer?

Dr. Pagani: The idea of selecting age as a determinant of care of young women is because they have specific issues, which are different from older, premenopausal patients but also older patients in general. We need to take care of many things, which can go from their job, family, fertility, and all these things are specific to these women and can impact their treatment, survivorship issues, side effects, and long-term problems. It’s a different world, compared with other patients with breast cancer.

Dr. Partridge: One of the areas that you and I have been very deep in the weeds in is the fertility issues. That’s obviously one of the things that’s pretty age-specific. There are some new data around that that we’re excited about. What do we think about when we think about trying to have a pregnancy or not after a breast cancer diagnosis?

Dr. Pagani: Yeah. I think it’s great times for that because we succeeded in building up a very important trial, which broke a taboo that was there for many, many decades: You had breast cancer so forget your pregnancy desire.

Despite many retrospective data from many groups that suggested pregnancy after breast cancer was not detrimental, there were so many obstacles for these women to address their pregnancy desire. I think we succeeded in explaining and showing in a quite solid way that if you desire a baby after breast cancer, you can try to have him or her.

Dr. Partridge: This was called the POSITIVE trial, with early findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine this past year, which was very exciting. Let’s dig a little deeper into that. Is this relevant for all patients with breast cancer or select patients with breast cancer who want to get pregnant?

Dr. Pagani: The accrual of the trial was open to all patients with stage I-III disease, but the majority of the patients were low risk, which means that the majority were node negative with small tumors. I think, so far, we can say that in low-risk women, pregnancy after breast cancer can be discussed and planned.

Summarizing, I think the evidence is for low-risk patients with early breast cancer. A minority had huge tumors or node-positive disease.

Dr. Partridge: It’s nice to be able to have these data to say a temporary interruption of endocrine therapy – not coming off forever, getting back on – was not associated with any worsening in terms of their breast cancer events in the future, which is great news for the women who are diagnosed when they’re trying to get pregnant and build their families or not having completed their families. It’s been fantastic.

What about for our patients with advanced disease who come in, and we’re treating them more to try and manage the cancer and improve their survival and quality of life, but cure may not be the goal. How do we manage the fertility issues for them?

Dr. Pagani: This is, I think, still an open issue despite overall survival for many women with advanced disease, especially HER2 positive or endocrine responsive; it is improving and it’s getting better and better. There are few women with oligometastatic disease that can be cured.

We are not yet there. At the Advanced Breast Cancer conference, we started to open the door to say that fertility should be discussed with patients with advanced breast cancer as well. We cannot recommend to patients with advanced breast cancer to pursue a pregnancy.

We have no data. For sure, this needs to be taken into account and discussed openly with all the patients who desire to discuss this.

Dr. Partridge: Yes. To help people to either grieve their losses or find alternative ways to build their family, I think, is something that we focus on.

How to optimize the plan of care for young patients

Dr. Partridge: Shifting gears into the psychosocial, we know that our young women of all stages have a harder time adjusting to a breast cancer diagnosis for good reason. It’s not normative at all to be dealing with a lot of the slings and arrows that our young women deal with at the age that they do. How do you manage that in your clinic, Olivia?

Dr. Pagani: Well, I think it’s always tough. One of the problems, which is also true for early breast cancer in general, which I think is common to you as well, is that in our society many women get breast cancer before even having thought of their family planning. That’s many of them in our reality.

In other countries, maybe they have already two to three children. In our countries, they are aged 30-35 years with no children, no stable relationship, and then are faced with all these things, and their pregnancy desire can be blown up because they understand there is no time, especially if they are metastatic. This can be devastating.

We are not very good at that yet. I think we need to develop better tools, better competence, and knowledge to support them to this extent as well.

Dr. Partridge: I know that whether people want kids or not, the diagnosis of breast cancer has financial toxicity and the inconvenience of going through this kind of experience while managing a busy life. Many of our patients, especially our young patients, are trying to develop their careers, to graduate from schools, and to grow a nest egg. They’re not retired yet, on average.

I agree that we have a large amount of work to do. The one thing I try and do is always bring in our social workers and our psychosocial supportive care providers for our young patients; not that I don’t bring them in for everybody that needs them, but our young patients on average seem to need them a little bit more just because it can be just so hard on them from a psychosocial and emotional standpoint, don’t you think?

Dr. Pagani: Yes, I think so. Do you have any specific program going on at Harvard?

Dr. Partridge: We do. We’ve built a program for young women that focuses on their unique and specific needs that capitalizes on groups that are already there. We have a social work department. We just have smoothed the pathway, and we send our young people in there more quickly and have some dedicated support groups and one-to-one interventions where patients can guide other young patients. We’ve built out the supportive care for these young patients and programming.

The other big area we’ve developed that’s not unique to young age but certainly enhanced in our young patients is genetics. We have a big genetic component at our cancer center. The young patients, more so than any other group, need to have the genetic counseling and the genetic testing not only to know about future risks and about their families but also to inform their treatment decisions these days. Do you want to comment on that?

Dr. Pagani: Yes, of course. Genetic counseling, especially for the most common BRCA1 and BRCA2, can change their local treatment (e.g., bilateral mastectomy instead of conservative surgery) but they have also to take care of their ovaries. They need to think of prophylactic oophorectomy, which makes fertility and pregnancy even more complicated. For them, it’s much more complex to address everything.

I think it’s really very complex, and I think we need a better understanding of all the nuances. Sometimes, we really do not consider, as you mentioned, that not every woman desires to have a baby.

The occurrence of breast cancer can wake up a desire that was not conscious but becomes conscious because you feel that you will not be able to do that. With the social support, the psychological support, and support groups – we have a very strong breast cancer support group for younger women — they could face these things. The young women support group was supportive of the POSITIVE trial: they helped to develop and financed a video, which was very helpful to promote POSITIVE.

I think that having a relationship or a network between patients, health professionals, social workers, and psychologists can help everyone, including those who want to become mothers, those who cannot, and those who do not want to.

Dr. Partridge: I think that’s great, Olivia. I think you rounded it out by just shining a light on these issues for our young patients and elevating it to being okay to talk about these issues. I think historically, it’s been: “You’ve got breast cancer, forget about this. We just need to get you to a better survival.”

We’re increasingly recognizing for patients of all ages, but particularly our young patients, that just surviving through breast cancer or cancer in general is not enough. We need to help people live the best and fullest life possible in their survivorship.
 

Education and communication: Key aspects moving forward

Dr. Pagani: I think another issue we need really to improve is health professional competence and knowledge. After you presented the POSITIVE trial in San Antonio, I had many calls with patients. They told me, “Well, I had this information, but my gynecologist, my oncologist, or my general practitioner still discouraged me.” This is a great barrier.

I think we need to do more to teach the health professionals. Otherwise, what we do is never enough because it will be blocked. They are scared and they do not want to go against their doctors. I think this is a very big conflict.

Dr. Partridge: That’s a really important point, and I appreciate you bringing it up. We as clinicians and educators who are building the research base need to really get it out there.

Dr. Pagani is a professor at the University of Geneva. Dr. Partridge is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of clinical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston. Dr. Pagani reported conflicts of interest with PRIME, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Debiopharm. Dr. Partridge reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Partridge: We’re here today to have a conversation about the unique or age-specific issues that face our young patients and survivors with breast cancer.

Olivia, let’s get started. What kinds of things do we need to think about when we’re seeing a young patient in clinic, beyond the usual things we think about for patients with breast cancer?

Dr. Pagani: The idea of selecting age as a determinant of care of young women is because they have specific issues, which are different from older, premenopausal patients but also older patients in general. We need to take care of many things, which can go from their job, family, fertility, and all these things are specific to these women and can impact their treatment, survivorship issues, side effects, and long-term problems. It’s a different world, compared with other patients with breast cancer.

Dr. Partridge: One of the areas that you and I have been very deep in the weeds in is the fertility issues. That’s obviously one of the things that’s pretty age-specific. There are some new data around that that we’re excited about. What do we think about when we think about trying to have a pregnancy or not after a breast cancer diagnosis?

Dr. Pagani: Yeah. I think it’s great times for that because we succeeded in building up a very important trial, which broke a taboo that was there for many, many decades: You had breast cancer so forget your pregnancy desire.

Despite many retrospective data from many groups that suggested pregnancy after breast cancer was not detrimental, there were so many obstacles for these women to address their pregnancy desire. I think we succeeded in explaining and showing in a quite solid way that if you desire a baby after breast cancer, you can try to have him or her.

Dr. Partridge: This was called the POSITIVE trial, with early findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine this past year, which was very exciting. Let’s dig a little deeper into that. Is this relevant for all patients with breast cancer or select patients with breast cancer who want to get pregnant?

Dr. Pagani: The accrual of the trial was open to all patients with stage I-III disease, but the majority of the patients were low risk, which means that the majority were node negative with small tumors. I think, so far, we can say that in low-risk women, pregnancy after breast cancer can be discussed and planned.

Summarizing, I think the evidence is for low-risk patients with early breast cancer. A minority had huge tumors or node-positive disease.

Dr. Partridge: It’s nice to be able to have these data to say a temporary interruption of endocrine therapy – not coming off forever, getting back on – was not associated with any worsening in terms of their breast cancer events in the future, which is great news for the women who are diagnosed when they’re trying to get pregnant and build their families or not having completed their families. It’s been fantastic.

What about for our patients with advanced disease who come in, and we’re treating them more to try and manage the cancer and improve their survival and quality of life, but cure may not be the goal. How do we manage the fertility issues for them?

Dr. Pagani: This is, I think, still an open issue despite overall survival for many women with advanced disease, especially HER2 positive or endocrine responsive; it is improving and it’s getting better and better. There are few women with oligometastatic disease that can be cured.

We are not yet there. At the Advanced Breast Cancer conference, we started to open the door to say that fertility should be discussed with patients with advanced breast cancer as well. We cannot recommend to patients with advanced breast cancer to pursue a pregnancy.

We have no data. For sure, this needs to be taken into account and discussed openly with all the patients who desire to discuss this.

Dr. Partridge: Yes. To help people to either grieve their losses or find alternative ways to build their family, I think, is something that we focus on.

How to optimize the plan of care for young patients

Dr. Partridge: Shifting gears into the psychosocial, we know that our young women of all stages have a harder time adjusting to a breast cancer diagnosis for good reason. It’s not normative at all to be dealing with a lot of the slings and arrows that our young women deal with at the age that they do. How do you manage that in your clinic, Olivia?

Dr. Pagani: Well, I think it’s always tough. One of the problems, which is also true for early breast cancer in general, which I think is common to you as well, is that in our society many women get breast cancer before even having thought of their family planning. That’s many of them in our reality.

In other countries, maybe they have already two to three children. In our countries, they are aged 30-35 years with no children, no stable relationship, and then are faced with all these things, and their pregnancy desire can be blown up because they understand there is no time, especially if they are metastatic. This can be devastating.

We are not very good at that yet. I think we need to develop better tools, better competence, and knowledge to support them to this extent as well.

Dr. Partridge: I know that whether people want kids or not, the diagnosis of breast cancer has financial toxicity and the inconvenience of going through this kind of experience while managing a busy life. Many of our patients, especially our young patients, are trying to develop their careers, to graduate from schools, and to grow a nest egg. They’re not retired yet, on average.

I agree that we have a large amount of work to do. The one thing I try and do is always bring in our social workers and our psychosocial supportive care providers for our young patients; not that I don’t bring them in for everybody that needs them, but our young patients on average seem to need them a little bit more just because it can be just so hard on them from a psychosocial and emotional standpoint, don’t you think?

Dr. Pagani: Yes, I think so. Do you have any specific program going on at Harvard?

Dr. Partridge: We do. We’ve built a program for young women that focuses on their unique and specific needs that capitalizes on groups that are already there. We have a social work department. We just have smoothed the pathway, and we send our young people in there more quickly and have some dedicated support groups and one-to-one interventions where patients can guide other young patients. We’ve built out the supportive care for these young patients and programming.

The other big area we’ve developed that’s not unique to young age but certainly enhanced in our young patients is genetics. We have a big genetic component at our cancer center. The young patients, more so than any other group, need to have the genetic counseling and the genetic testing not only to know about future risks and about their families but also to inform their treatment decisions these days. Do you want to comment on that?

Dr. Pagani: Yes, of course. Genetic counseling, especially for the most common BRCA1 and BRCA2, can change their local treatment (e.g., bilateral mastectomy instead of conservative surgery) but they have also to take care of their ovaries. They need to think of prophylactic oophorectomy, which makes fertility and pregnancy even more complicated. For them, it’s much more complex to address everything.

I think it’s really very complex, and I think we need a better understanding of all the nuances. Sometimes, we really do not consider, as you mentioned, that not every woman desires to have a baby.

The occurrence of breast cancer can wake up a desire that was not conscious but becomes conscious because you feel that you will not be able to do that. With the social support, the psychological support, and support groups – we have a very strong breast cancer support group for younger women — they could face these things. The young women support group was supportive of the POSITIVE trial: they helped to develop and financed a video, which was very helpful to promote POSITIVE.

I think that having a relationship or a network between patients, health professionals, social workers, and psychologists can help everyone, including those who want to become mothers, those who cannot, and those who do not want to.

Dr. Partridge: I think that’s great, Olivia. I think you rounded it out by just shining a light on these issues for our young patients and elevating it to being okay to talk about these issues. I think historically, it’s been: “You’ve got breast cancer, forget about this. We just need to get you to a better survival.”

We’re increasingly recognizing for patients of all ages, but particularly our young patients, that just surviving through breast cancer or cancer in general is not enough. We need to help people live the best and fullest life possible in their survivorship.
 

Education and communication: Key aspects moving forward

Dr. Pagani: I think another issue we need really to improve is health professional competence and knowledge. After you presented the POSITIVE trial in San Antonio, I had many calls with patients. They told me, “Well, I had this information, but my gynecologist, my oncologist, or my general practitioner still discouraged me.” This is a great barrier.

I think we need to do more to teach the health professionals. Otherwise, what we do is never enough because it will be blocked. They are scared and they do not want to go against their doctors. I think this is a very big conflict.

Dr. Partridge: That’s a really important point, and I appreciate you bringing it up. We as clinicians and educators who are building the research base need to really get it out there.

Dr. Pagani is a professor at the University of Geneva. Dr. Partridge is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and vice chair of clinical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston. Dr. Pagani reported conflicts of interest with PRIME, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Debiopharm. Dr. Partridge reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Patel: A friend recently joked with me and said, “I wish you were a dermatologist so you could hook me up with Botox and fillers.” Well, little does this friend know that I could be a certified cosmetic injector just after a weekend course. Botox parties, here I come?

I can’t blame any health care professional for having a side hustle. People are burned out, want to supplement their income, or scale back clinical hours. According to one Medscape survey, almost 40% of physicians do have some form of a side hustle, whether it is consulting, speaking engagements, being an expert witness, or moonlighting. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who have taken on Botox injecting as a way to make some extra cash.

Now, going back to me and smoothing out wrinkles. I’m a pediatric hospitalist. I’ve never injected an aesthetic product in anyone’s face. When it comes to sharp objects and faces, I’ve sewn lacerations and drained abscesses. In my world, when we talk about botulinum toxin, we’re usually talking about botulism or the therapeutic treatment of migraines and muscle spasms – pathology. But even still, how hard would it actually be for me to go out and get certified to give Botox?

The National Laser Institute has a 2-day Botox and dermal filler training. “Our 2-day Botox and filler course will also teach you how to build a practice and capitalize on the enormous Botox and dermal filler market that exists in the United States.” That’s a lot to cover in 2 days. They even have lunch breaks.

Just from a quick search, I even found an online video course for $1,500. For an additional fee, you can have a live, hands-on component. There are so many trainings out there, including one that’s only 8 hours long, offered by Empire Medical. I also went and spoke with an employee at Empire Medical who told me that because I’m an MD, if I do the course, I can use my certificate and go directly to a manufacturer, buy Botox, and start injecting right away.

Now, is this training actually sufficient for me to go and get good results while minimizing adverse effects like brow ptosis, dry eyes, and asymmetry? I have no idea. According to a review from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, it’s crucial to understand anatomic landmarks, muscle function, baseline asymmetry, potential migration of the toxin, and site-specific precautions.

Okay, that sounds really intimidating, but people still do it. I saw a Business Insider article about a hospitalist who took a 2-day Botox course and then, to her credit, she trained under supervision for an additional 6 months. She then started hosting Botox parties and each time was making $3,500 to upwards of $20,000.

Let’s do some quick mental math. If I were to go online and buy Botox for $3-$6 a unit and then charge patients $15 a unit, and then I consider that in areas like the forehead or in between the eyes – I read that could take 25-50 units – and I repeat this for multiple patients, I can make a few thousand dollars. Well, I may have to adjust my prices according to the market, obviously, because I did see some Groupons advertising $10 per unit.

Who can get in on some Botox cosmetic cash action? Well, physicians can right away. For other health care professionals, it depends on the state. For example, in California, dentists cannot get Botox solely for cosmetic purposes, whereas in Arizona, they can. Generally speaking, NPs and PAs require some type of physician oversight or supervision, but again, it depends on the state.

Oh, and fun fact: Connecticut outright banned Botox parties and said that Botox must be performed “in a medical spa or licensed health care facility and by a Connecticut-licensed health care provider within his or her scope of practice.”

It definitely worries me that someone could go online or go overseas, buy Botox, claim to be a health care professional, and literally commit fraud. I found stories out there such as a couple in San Jose who are giving out Botox from their home without a license. They got arrested. Also, a woman in Alabama who lied about being a licensed dermatologist and did the same, or another woman in Los Angeles who got arrested after selling counterfeit Botox to undercover law enforcement. Surely, there are plenty more cases out there like this.

I asked Dr. Jacqueline Watchmaker, a board-certified dermatologist at U.S. Dermatology Partners in Arizona who has an expertise in cosmetic procedures, what she thought about the booming med spa industry and what, if any, regulatory changes she wanted to see.

Jacqueline Watchmaker, MD: I do think the fact that people can just go to a 1- or 2-day injection course and inject filler and Botox is concerning. I think the lack of regulation surrounding this topic is also very concerning.

There’s so much that goes into being a skilled injector. It’s an intricate knowledge of facial anatomy, which takes weeks, if not months, to really master. There’s actually injection technique, which can be very complex depending on the part of the face that you’re injecting. Even more important, it’s how to prevent complications, but also how to deal with complications if they do occur. There’s no way that these weekend injection courses are able to cover those topics in a thorough and satisfactory manner.

I see complications from med spas all the time, and I think it’s people going to injectors who are not skilled. They don’t know their anatomy, they don’t know the appropriate filler to use, and then heaven forbid there is a complication, they don’t know how to manage the complication – and then those patients get sent to me.

I think patients sometimes forget that these cosmetic procedures are true medical procedures. You need sterile technique. Again, you need to know the anatomy. It can look easy on social media, but there’s a large amount of thought behind it. I think there needs to be more regulation around this topic.

Dr. Patel: In one study, out of 400 people who received a cosmetic procedure, 50 reported an adverse event, such as discoloration or burns, and these adverse events were more likely to occur if a nonphysician was doing the procedure. Granted, this was a small study. You can’t make a generalization out of it, but this does add to the argument that there needs to be more regulation and oversight.

Let’s be real. The cosmetic injection side hustle is alive and well, but I’m good. I’m not going there. Maybe there should be some more quality control. At Botox parties, do people even ask if their injectors are certified or where they bought their vials?

You might be thinking that this isn’t a big deal because it’s just Botox. Let me ask you all a question: If you or your family member were going to go get Botox or another cosmetic injection, would it still not be a big deal?

Dr. Patel is a pediatric hospitalist, television producer, media contributor, and digital health enthusiast. He splits his time between New York City and San Francisco, as he is on faculty at Columbia University/Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. He reported conflicts of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Patel: A friend recently joked with me and said, “I wish you were a dermatologist so you could hook me up with Botox and fillers.” Well, little does this friend know that I could be a certified cosmetic injector just after a weekend course. Botox parties, here I come?

I can’t blame any health care professional for having a side hustle. People are burned out, want to supplement their income, or scale back clinical hours. According to one Medscape survey, almost 40% of physicians do have some form of a side hustle, whether it is consulting, speaking engagements, being an expert witness, or moonlighting. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who have taken on Botox injecting as a way to make some extra cash.

Now, going back to me and smoothing out wrinkles. I’m a pediatric hospitalist. I’ve never injected an aesthetic product in anyone’s face. When it comes to sharp objects and faces, I’ve sewn lacerations and drained abscesses. In my world, when we talk about botulinum toxin, we’re usually talking about botulism or the therapeutic treatment of migraines and muscle spasms – pathology. But even still, how hard would it actually be for me to go out and get certified to give Botox?

The National Laser Institute has a 2-day Botox and dermal filler training. “Our 2-day Botox and filler course will also teach you how to build a practice and capitalize on the enormous Botox and dermal filler market that exists in the United States.” That’s a lot to cover in 2 days. They even have lunch breaks.

Just from a quick search, I even found an online video course for $1,500. For an additional fee, you can have a live, hands-on component. There are so many trainings out there, including one that’s only 8 hours long, offered by Empire Medical. I also went and spoke with an employee at Empire Medical who told me that because I’m an MD, if I do the course, I can use my certificate and go directly to a manufacturer, buy Botox, and start injecting right away.

Now, is this training actually sufficient for me to go and get good results while minimizing adverse effects like brow ptosis, dry eyes, and asymmetry? I have no idea. According to a review from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, it’s crucial to understand anatomic landmarks, muscle function, baseline asymmetry, potential migration of the toxin, and site-specific precautions.

Okay, that sounds really intimidating, but people still do it. I saw a Business Insider article about a hospitalist who took a 2-day Botox course and then, to her credit, she trained under supervision for an additional 6 months. She then started hosting Botox parties and each time was making $3,500 to upwards of $20,000.

Let’s do some quick mental math. If I were to go online and buy Botox for $3-$6 a unit and then charge patients $15 a unit, and then I consider that in areas like the forehead or in between the eyes – I read that could take 25-50 units – and I repeat this for multiple patients, I can make a few thousand dollars. Well, I may have to adjust my prices according to the market, obviously, because I did see some Groupons advertising $10 per unit.

Who can get in on some Botox cosmetic cash action? Well, physicians can right away. For other health care professionals, it depends on the state. For example, in California, dentists cannot get Botox solely for cosmetic purposes, whereas in Arizona, they can. Generally speaking, NPs and PAs require some type of physician oversight or supervision, but again, it depends on the state.

Oh, and fun fact: Connecticut outright banned Botox parties and said that Botox must be performed “in a medical spa or licensed health care facility and by a Connecticut-licensed health care provider within his or her scope of practice.”

It definitely worries me that someone could go online or go overseas, buy Botox, claim to be a health care professional, and literally commit fraud. I found stories out there such as a couple in San Jose who are giving out Botox from their home without a license. They got arrested. Also, a woman in Alabama who lied about being a licensed dermatologist and did the same, or another woman in Los Angeles who got arrested after selling counterfeit Botox to undercover law enforcement. Surely, there are plenty more cases out there like this.

I asked Dr. Jacqueline Watchmaker, a board-certified dermatologist at U.S. Dermatology Partners in Arizona who has an expertise in cosmetic procedures, what she thought about the booming med spa industry and what, if any, regulatory changes she wanted to see.

Jacqueline Watchmaker, MD: I do think the fact that people can just go to a 1- or 2-day injection course and inject filler and Botox is concerning. I think the lack of regulation surrounding this topic is also very concerning.

There’s so much that goes into being a skilled injector. It’s an intricate knowledge of facial anatomy, which takes weeks, if not months, to really master. There’s actually injection technique, which can be very complex depending on the part of the face that you’re injecting. Even more important, it’s how to prevent complications, but also how to deal with complications if they do occur. There’s no way that these weekend injection courses are able to cover those topics in a thorough and satisfactory manner.

I see complications from med spas all the time, and I think it’s people going to injectors who are not skilled. They don’t know their anatomy, they don’t know the appropriate filler to use, and then heaven forbid there is a complication, they don’t know how to manage the complication – and then those patients get sent to me.

I think patients sometimes forget that these cosmetic procedures are true medical procedures. You need sterile technique. Again, you need to know the anatomy. It can look easy on social media, but there’s a large amount of thought behind it. I think there needs to be more regulation around this topic.

Dr. Patel: In one study, out of 400 people who received a cosmetic procedure, 50 reported an adverse event, such as discoloration or burns, and these adverse events were more likely to occur if a nonphysician was doing the procedure. Granted, this was a small study. You can’t make a generalization out of it, but this does add to the argument that there needs to be more regulation and oversight.

Let’s be real. The cosmetic injection side hustle is alive and well, but I’m good. I’m not going there. Maybe there should be some more quality control. At Botox parties, do people even ask if their injectors are certified or where they bought their vials?

You might be thinking that this isn’t a big deal because it’s just Botox. Let me ask you all a question: If you or your family member were going to go get Botox or another cosmetic injection, would it still not be a big deal?

Dr. Patel is a pediatric hospitalist, television producer, media contributor, and digital health enthusiast. He splits his time between New York City and San Francisco, as he is on faculty at Columbia University/Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. He reported conflicts of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Patel: A friend recently joked with me and said, “I wish you were a dermatologist so you could hook me up with Botox and fillers.” Well, little does this friend know that I could be a certified cosmetic injector just after a weekend course. Botox parties, here I come?

I can’t blame any health care professional for having a side hustle. People are burned out, want to supplement their income, or scale back clinical hours. According to one Medscape survey, almost 40% of physicians do have some form of a side hustle, whether it is consulting, speaking engagements, being an expert witness, or moonlighting. I know plenty of doctors and nurses who have taken on Botox injecting as a way to make some extra cash.

Now, going back to me and smoothing out wrinkles. I’m a pediatric hospitalist. I’ve never injected an aesthetic product in anyone’s face. When it comes to sharp objects and faces, I’ve sewn lacerations and drained abscesses. In my world, when we talk about botulinum toxin, we’re usually talking about botulism or the therapeutic treatment of migraines and muscle spasms – pathology. But even still, how hard would it actually be for me to go out and get certified to give Botox?

The National Laser Institute has a 2-day Botox and dermal filler training. “Our 2-day Botox and filler course will also teach you how to build a practice and capitalize on the enormous Botox and dermal filler market that exists in the United States.” That’s a lot to cover in 2 days. They even have lunch breaks.

Just from a quick search, I even found an online video course for $1,500. For an additional fee, you can have a live, hands-on component. There are so many trainings out there, including one that’s only 8 hours long, offered by Empire Medical. I also went and spoke with an employee at Empire Medical who told me that because I’m an MD, if I do the course, I can use my certificate and go directly to a manufacturer, buy Botox, and start injecting right away.

Now, is this training actually sufficient for me to go and get good results while minimizing adverse effects like brow ptosis, dry eyes, and asymmetry? I have no idea. According to a review from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, it’s crucial to understand anatomic landmarks, muscle function, baseline asymmetry, potential migration of the toxin, and site-specific precautions.

Okay, that sounds really intimidating, but people still do it. I saw a Business Insider article about a hospitalist who took a 2-day Botox course and then, to her credit, she trained under supervision for an additional 6 months. She then started hosting Botox parties and each time was making $3,500 to upwards of $20,000.

Let’s do some quick mental math. If I were to go online and buy Botox for $3-$6 a unit and then charge patients $15 a unit, and then I consider that in areas like the forehead or in between the eyes – I read that could take 25-50 units – and I repeat this for multiple patients, I can make a few thousand dollars. Well, I may have to adjust my prices according to the market, obviously, because I did see some Groupons advertising $10 per unit.

Who can get in on some Botox cosmetic cash action? Well, physicians can right away. For other health care professionals, it depends on the state. For example, in California, dentists cannot get Botox solely for cosmetic purposes, whereas in Arizona, they can. Generally speaking, NPs and PAs require some type of physician oversight or supervision, but again, it depends on the state.

Oh, and fun fact: Connecticut outright banned Botox parties and said that Botox must be performed “in a medical spa or licensed health care facility and by a Connecticut-licensed health care provider within his or her scope of practice.”

It definitely worries me that someone could go online or go overseas, buy Botox, claim to be a health care professional, and literally commit fraud. I found stories out there such as a couple in San Jose who are giving out Botox from their home without a license. They got arrested. Also, a woman in Alabama who lied about being a licensed dermatologist and did the same, or another woman in Los Angeles who got arrested after selling counterfeit Botox to undercover law enforcement. Surely, there are plenty more cases out there like this.

I asked Dr. Jacqueline Watchmaker, a board-certified dermatologist at U.S. Dermatology Partners in Arizona who has an expertise in cosmetic procedures, what she thought about the booming med spa industry and what, if any, regulatory changes she wanted to see.

Jacqueline Watchmaker, MD: I do think the fact that people can just go to a 1- or 2-day injection course and inject filler and Botox is concerning. I think the lack of regulation surrounding this topic is also very concerning.

There’s so much that goes into being a skilled injector. It’s an intricate knowledge of facial anatomy, which takes weeks, if not months, to really master. There’s actually injection technique, which can be very complex depending on the part of the face that you’re injecting. Even more important, it’s how to prevent complications, but also how to deal with complications if they do occur. There’s no way that these weekend injection courses are able to cover those topics in a thorough and satisfactory manner.

I see complications from med spas all the time, and I think it’s people going to injectors who are not skilled. They don’t know their anatomy, they don’t know the appropriate filler to use, and then heaven forbid there is a complication, they don’t know how to manage the complication – and then those patients get sent to me.

I think patients sometimes forget that these cosmetic procedures are true medical procedures. You need sterile technique. Again, you need to know the anatomy. It can look easy on social media, but there’s a large amount of thought behind it. I think there needs to be more regulation around this topic.

Dr. Patel: In one study, out of 400 people who received a cosmetic procedure, 50 reported an adverse event, such as discoloration or burns, and these adverse events were more likely to occur if a nonphysician was doing the procedure. Granted, this was a small study. You can’t make a generalization out of it, but this does add to the argument that there needs to be more regulation and oversight.

Let’s be real. The cosmetic injection side hustle is alive and well, but I’m good. I’m not going there. Maybe there should be some more quality control. At Botox parties, do people even ask if their injectors are certified or where they bought their vials?

You might be thinking that this isn’t a big deal because it’s just Botox. Let me ask you all a question: If you or your family member were going to go get Botox or another cosmetic injection, would it still not be a big deal?

Dr. Patel is a pediatric hospitalist, television producer, media contributor, and digital health enthusiast. He splits his time between New York City and San Francisco, as he is on faculty at Columbia University/Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital. He reported conflicts of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I went to med school, we were taught to take a sexual history. Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both? And that was it. We’re telling patients that sex is a vice, something that is dangerous and that you should feel bad about. But sex is how we’re all here and how we even continue as a species. We must get comfortable as doctors talking to our patients about sexual medicine.

What if we move away from sex being in the vice category – the part of the social history that’s the bad stuff you shouldn’t be doing? Maybe we should bring it into the review of systems.

As a very basic first step, I like to ask patients four things. As a sexual medicine doctor, I deal with these four things: libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain.

Why are these important? These are the things our patients really care about; 2.3 of every 1,000 people got divorced in 2021.

Libido. Women who have distressing low sexual desire have sex on average two and a half times per month. We call this mercy sex or duty sex. I don’t know what the half time per month looks like, but people genuinely care about desire and their doctors don’t really know that.

We have a biopsychosocial toolbox to help our patients. Let me give you an example: Antidepressants can have sexual side effects. Could there be medications in our toolbox that can help our patients? Of course there can, and there are. What about education or talk therapy? We should be asking our patients what they care about and why they care about it so we can help them achieve their quality-of-life goals.

Arousal. What about arousal? Did you know that erections are a marker of cardiovascular disease in men? We know this to be true for men, and I’m certain the research would be no different for women. We know that there are many biological causes for decrease in arousal, including sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. I can convince a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them it’s bad for their penis. We have to understand what our patients care about and then advise them on why we think we can help improve these issues.

Orgasm. How about orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you can orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you have questions about orgasm? About 15%-20% of women report having an orgasm disorder, and we rarely talk about this in an exam room. I’ve certainly never been asked, and everybody knows what I do for a living. Not to mention all the men that I and my colleagues see who have really distressing premature ejaculation or delayed orgasm. This is pathophysiology at its finest and most complex. It is so interesting, and we have so much to learn and understand about orgasm in general.

Pain. Finally, ask about pain. It seems obvious that we should be asking our patients about their pain, which includes pelvic pain, but oftentimes we avoid talking about private parts. Pain affects not just our patients, but also their partners and their families, when our patients can’t sit without discomfort, if they can’t go and perform the daily activities that bring them joy and belonging. We have to really work with our toolbox in a biopsychosocial manner to help our patients. I often use the incredible rehabilitation specialists called pelvic floor physical therapists.

Remember, we’re talking about libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Sex is important to us as a species. It’s important to our patients. Please consider enhancing your sexual history–taking skills and ask patients about their desire, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Ask nonjudgmental and open-ended questions. You actually may be the only doctor to ever do so.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I went to med school, we were taught to take a sexual history. Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both? And that was it. We’re telling patients that sex is a vice, something that is dangerous and that you should feel bad about. But sex is how we’re all here and how we even continue as a species. We must get comfortable as doctors talking to our patients about sexual medicine.

What if we move away from sex being in the vice category – the part of the social history that’s the bad stuff you shouldn’t be doing? Maybe we should bring it into the review of systems.

As a very basic first step, I like to ask patients four things. As a sexual medicine doctor, I deal with these four things: libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain.

Why are these important? These are the things our patients really care about; 2.3 of every 1,000 people got divorced in 2021.

Libido. Women who have distressing low sexual desire have sex on average two and a half times per month. We call this mercy sex or duty sex. I don’t know what the half time per month looks like, but people genuinely care about desire and their doctors don’t really know that.

We have a biopsychosocial toolbox to help our patients. Let me give you an example: Antidepressants can have sexual side effects. Could there be medications in our toolbox that can help our patients? Of course there can, and there are. What about education or talk therapy? We should be asking our patients what they care about and why they care about it so we can help them achieve their quality-of-life goals.

Arousal. What about arousal? Did you know that erections are a marker of cardiovascular disease in men? We know this to be true for men, and I’m certain the research would be no different for women. We know that there are many biological causes for decrease in arousal, including sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. I can convince a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them it’s bad for their penis. We have to understand what our patients care about and then advise them on why we think we can help improve these issues.

Orgasm. How about orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you can orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you have questions about orgasm? About 15%-20% of women report having an orgasm disorder, and we rarely talk about this in an exam room. I’ve certainly never been asked, and everybody knows what I do for a living. Not to mention all the men that I and my colleagues see who have really distressing premature ejaculation or delayed orgasm. This is pathophysiology at its finest and most complex. It is so interesting, and we have so much to learn and understand about orgasm in general.

Pain. Finally, ask about pain. It seems obvious that we should be asking our patients about their pain, which includes pelvic pain, but oftentimes we avoid talking about private parts. Pain affects not just our patients, but also their partners and their families, when our patients can’t sit without discomfort, if they can’t go and perform the daily activities that bring them joy and belonging. We have to really work with our toolbox in a biopsychosocial manner to help our patients. I often use the incredible rehabilitation specialists called pelvic floor physical therapists.

Remember, we’re talking about libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Sex is important to us as a species. It’s important to our patients. Please consider enhancing your sexual history–taking skills and ask patients about their desire, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Ask nonjudgmental and open-ended questions. You actually may be the only doctor to ever do so.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I went to med school, we were taught to take a sexual history. Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both? And that was it. We’re telling patients that sex is a vice, something that is dangerous and that you should feel bad about. But sex is how we’re all here and how we even continue as a species. We must get comfortable as doctors talking to our patients about sexual medicine.

What if we move away from sex being in the vice category – the part of the social history that’s the bad stuff you shouldn’t be doing? Maybe we should bring it into the review of systems.

As a very basic first step, I like to ask patients four things. As a sexual medicine doctor, I deal with these four things: libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain.

Why are these important? These are the things our patients really care about; 2.3 of every 1,000 people got divorced in 2021.

Libido. Women who have distressing low sexual desire have sex on average two and a half times per month. We call this mercy sex or duty sex. I don’t know what the half time per month looks like, but people genuinely care about desire and their doctors don’t really know that.

We have a biopsychosocial toolbox to help our patients. Let me give you an example: Antidepressants can have sexual side effects. Could there be medications in our toolbox that can help our patients? Of course there can, and there are. What about education or talk therapy? We should be asking our patients what they care about and why they care about it so we can help them achieve their quality-of-life goals.

Arousal. What about arousal? Did you know that erections are a marker of cardiovascular disease in men? We know this to be true for men, and I’m certain the research would be no different for women. We know that there are many biological causes for decrease in arousal, including sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. I can convince a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them it’s bad for their penis. We have to understand what our patients care about and then advise them on why we think we can help improve these issues.

Orgasm. How about orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you can orgasm? Have you ever been asked whether you have questions about orgasm? About 15%-20% of women report having an orgasm disorder, and we rarely talk about this in an exam room. I’ve certainly never been asked, and everybody knows what I do for a living. Not to mention all the men that I and my colleagues see who have really distressing premature ejaculation or delayed orgasm. This is pathophysiology at its finest and most complex. It is so interesting, and we have so much to learn and understand about orgasm in general.

Pain. Finally, ask about pain. It seems obvious that we should be asking our patients about their pain, which includes pelvic pain, but oftentimes we avoid talking about private parts. Pain affects not just our patients, but also their partners and their families, when our patients can’t sit without discomfort, if they can’t go and perform the daily activities that bring them joy and belonging. We have to really work with our toolbox in a biopsychosocial manner to help our patients. I often use the incredible rehabilitation specialists called pelvic floor physical therapists.

Remember, we’re talking about libido, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Sex is important to us as a species. It’s important to our patients. Please consider enhancing your sexual history–taking skills and ask patients about their desire, arousal, orgasm, and pain. Ask nonjudgmental and open-ended questions. You actually may be the only doctor to ever do so.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Clostridioides difficile is a toxin-based infection that takes up residence in the colon due to disturbed normal bowel flora, usually after antibiotics.

Recurrent C. difficile can happen in up to a quarter of patients who receive oral vancomycin as a treatment for their infection. It can also occur with treatment with the newer agent, fidaxomicin, although possibly in fewer patients. In general, relapses are indeed common.

When I trained at Johns Hopkins under John Bartlett, he took the approach that after the second – and always after the third – relapse, an extended course of oral therapy with vancomycin could help get patients out of trouble. He used the so-called extended pulse method, where patients would take the drug for approximately 4-6 weeks and gradually reduce the dose.

This approach can also be done with fidaxomicin. However, I’m not sure it works much better than vancomycin, and there are often hurdles to using fidaxomicin because of insurers not approving it because of the expense.

What other therapies are there?

There is bezlotoxumab, which is a human monoclonal antibody targeting C. difficile toxin B. I’ve used it a few times. It is given as a one-time infusion, and there are challenges regarding cost, the logistics of setting up the infusion, and insurance approval.
 

Fecal microbiota transplant

In recent years, fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) have received a lot of attention as a different avenue of treatment that could lower the potential for relapses, with success rates usually around 80%-90%. However, in the past few years, there have been some serious safety signals because of possible transmission of dangerous pathogens, often with drug resistance, with FMT.

I’m therefore pleased to say that newer fecal microbiota products are coming in fast and furious. I thought I’d spend a few minutes speaking about these.

OpenBiome, an organization dedicated to microbiome research, offers an investigational product from screened donors that has not received Food and Drug Administration approval. It’s been around for some time. It can be used in either upper or lower GI applications, and the organization cites about an 84% success rate using this product.

There are also two new FDA-approved products I think are worth knowing about. They’ve just been approved recently and we’re a little uncertain of where they’re going to end up in the treatment landscape.

The first is from Ferring, and it goes by fecal microbiota, live-jslm (Rebyota). This is a product from qualified and screened donors, the main component of which is Bacteroides, which is given as a single dose by enema.

The company did a phase 3 trial with a Bayesian primary analysis, which I think convinced the FDA to approve this product. The success rate in people with multiple relapses was 70.6%, compared with 57.5% with placebo. The estimated treatment effect was 13.1%. Of those who did respond, over 90% were kept free of relapse over a 6-month period.

The other product, also FDA approved, is from Seres. It was previously called SER-109, and is now called fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk (Vowst). Unlike the previous product, this is orally administered, with patients taking four capsules daily for 3 days. Again, these donor-derived firmicutes have been appropriately screened and are free of potential pathogens.

The phase 3 randomized clinical trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that 12% of those taking this product had a relapse, compared with 40% of those taking placebo, which is about the range we tend to see in people who have had multiple relapses. The safety profile was similar to placebo.

So, how will people use these treatments?

I think the FDA imprimatur will be attractive to people, but the products, I believe, will be priced fairly expensively, in the under $10,000 range. The first (Rebyota) is a rectal infusion; it is a one-and-done treatment but creates logistical issues. Interestingly, it could be a billable procedure for infectious disease clinicians. The ease of oral administration for Vowst, no doubt, will be very appealing. Both of these are given after completing a course of treatment with vancomycin or fidaxomicin so as not to interfere with the microbiome product.

I’ll also briefly mention a paper published in JAMA on yet another microbiome product, called VE303. This product was based on eight commensal strains of Clostridia and was given orally in a phase 2 trial. Interestingly, this worked about the same as the oral product that is already FDA approved. The study showed a recurrence rate of 13.8% in the high-dose group, compared with 45.5% in the placebo group.

I think this is exciting. Hopefully, we will have safer products that can be more reliable, although there are some concerns and logistical challenges in safely getting the products to people. And, of course, there is the expense.

But anything that can be done to help improve these patients is welcome, as once they get into the multiple-relapse phase, it is challenging to turn around. These commercialized products will hopefully become a bit more mainstream. Certainly, we’ll see how these will be utilized in the coming months and over the next few years.

Dr. Auwaerter is Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He reported conflicts of interest with Gilead, Shionogi, and Medscape.

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

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a CT scan of the chest might as well be Atlas Shrugged. When you think of the sheer information content in one of those scans, it becomes immediately clear that our usual method of CT scan interpretation must be leaving a lot on the table. After all, we can go through all that information and come out with simply “normal” and call it a day.
 

Of course, radiologists can glean a lot from a CT scan, but they are trained to look for abnormalities. They can find pneumonia, emboli, fractures, and pneumothoraces, but the presence or absence of life-threatening abnormalities is still just a fraction of the data contained within a CT scan.

Pulling out more data from those images – data that may not indicate disease per se, but nevertheless tell us something important about patients and their risks – might just fall to those entities that are primed to take a bunch of data and interpret it in new ways: artificial intelligence (AI).

I’m thinking about AI and CT scans this week thanks to this study, appearing in the journal Radiology, from Kaiwen Xu and colleagues at Vanderbilt.

In a previous study, the team had developed an AI algorithm to take chest CT images and convert that data into information about body composition: skeletal muscle mass, fat mass, muscle lipid content – that sort of thing.

courtesy HHS Author Manuscripts

courtesy GitHub

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a CT scan of the chest might as well be Atlas Shrugged. When you think of the sheer information content in one of those scans, it becomes immediately clear that our usual method of CT scan interpretation must be leaving a lot on the table. After all, we can go through all that information and come out with simply “normal” and call it a day.
 

Of course, radiologists can glean a lot from a CT scan, but they are trained to look for abnormalities. They can find pneumonia, emboli, fractures, and pneumothoraces, but the presence or absence of life-threatening abnormalities is still just a fraction of the data contained within a CT scan.

Pulling out more data from those images – data that may not indicate disease per se, but nevertheless tell us something important about patients and their risks – might just fall to those entities that are primed to take a bunch of data and interpret it in new ways: artificial intelligence (AI).

I’m thinking about AI and CT scans this week thanks to this study, appearing in the journal Radiology, from Kaiwen Xu and colleagues at Vanderbilt.

In a previous study, the team had developed an AI algorithm to take chest CT images and convert that data into information about body composition: skeletal muscle mass, fat mass, muscle lipid content – that sort of thing.

courtesy HHS Author Manuscripts

courtesy GitHub

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a CT scan of the chest might as well be Atlas Shrugged. When you think of the sheer information content in one of those scans, it becomes immediately clear that our usual method of CT scan interpretation must be leaving a lot on the table. After all, we can go through all that information and come out with simply “normal” and call it a day.
 

Of course, radiologists can glean a lot from a CT scan, but they are trained to look for abnormalities. They can find pneumonia, emboli, fractures, and pneumothoraces, but the presence or absence of life-threatening abnormalities is still just a fraction of the data contained within a CT scan.

Pulling out more data from those images – data that may not indicate disease per se, but nevertheless tell us something important about patients and their risks – might just fall to those entities that are primed to take a bunch of data and interpret it in new ways: artificial intelligence (AI).

I’m thinking about AI and CT scans this week thanks to this study, appearing in the journal Radiology, from Kaiwen Xu and colleagues at Vanderbilt.

In a previous study, the team had developed an AI algorithm to take chest CT images and convert that data into information about body composition: skeletal muscle mass, fat mass, muscle lipid content – that sort of thing.

courtesy HHS Author Manuscripts

courtesy GitHub

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Radiology

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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