Commentary

Cholangiocarcinoma is a heterogeneous, highly aggressive cancer of the biliary tract epithelium with an overall 5-year relative survival rate of only 9%.^1,2 Although surgical resection of localized, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is associated with improved overall survival, most patients present with advanced disease not amenable to surgery due to a late onset of symptoms.² Recently, an increased incidence of cholangiocarcinoma has been reported in the United States.³ Although relatively rare in the US, cholangiocarcinoma is prevalent across large parts of Asia, including China, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, and Taiwan.²

Risk Factors

To date, risk factors for developing cholangiocarcinoma have not been elucidated. ^4,5 However, a growing body of literature suggests that chronic infection of genetically susceptible human subjects with Clonorchis sinensis ( C sinensis ) and Opisthorchis viverrini ( O viverrini ) plays a role. ^6,7 The life cycle of these food-borne zoonotic trematodes involves eggs discharged in the stool of infected humans, the definitive host. ^6,7 In nature, these eggs are ingested by freshwater snails, the intermediate host, where they undergo several developmental stages to form cercariae. Once released from snails into the water, free-swimming cercariae come in contact and penetrate freshwater fish where they encyst as metacercariae. Infection of humans occurs by ingesting undercooked, salted, pickled, or smoked freshwater fish infested with metacercariae. After ingestion, metacercariae excyst in the duodenum and ascend the biliary tract through the ampulla of Vater. They then mature into adult flukes that reside in small- and medium-sized intrahepatic biliary ducts. ^6,7

Although most infected people remain asymptomatic, untreated indolent infections with C sinensis and O viverrini may persist in peripheral intrahepatic bile ducts for as long as 30 years, which is the lifespan of the trematodes.^6,7 During this prolonged period, C sinensis and O viverrini feeding activities and their excretory-secretory products may damage bile duct epithelium and promote intense local inflammation.^6,7 Conceivably, these pathological processes could then provoke the epithelial desquamation, adenomatous hyperplasia, goblet cell metaplasia, periductal fibrosis, and granuloma formation that are conducive to initiation and progression of cholangiocarcinoma in genetically susceptible people.⁸ Accordingly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of chronic infections with C sinensis and O viverrini in humans and that chronic infections with these trematodes cause cholangiocarcinoma.⁹ The IARC concluded that chronic infections with C sinensis and O viverrini are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).⁹

Diagnosis

Presently, the diagnosis of C sinensis and O viverrini infection is based on microscopic identification and enumeration of the parasites’ eggs in weighted stool specimens using a formalin-ethyl acetate sedimentation concentration technique. ^6,7 This approach requires a labor-intensive test that is conducted by an experienced technician. The test has low specificity and sensitivity because eggs could be confused with those of nonpathogenic intestinal flukes that are morphologically similar and because eggs are not present in feces during all stages of the infection. Although diffuse dilatation of intrahepatic bile ducts by screening sonography is used to diagnose clonorchiasis in endemic areas, it has low sensitivity, particularly in patients with low-level C sinensis and O viverrin i infections. ¹⁰

To address the current diagnostic gap, several enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) have been developed for the diagnosis of C sinensis, including monoclonal antibody-based (mAb) ELISA and indirect antibody ELISA.^11,12 However, both have important limitations. The mAb ELISA detects only active infections while indirect antibody ELISA cross-reacts with other liver flukes.^11,12 Taken together, these data illustrate the difficulties in diagnosing asymptomatic individuals with low-burden C sinensis or O viverrini infections by existing laboratory methods.

Timely serodiagnosis of indolent C sinensis and O viverrini infections is important because these parasites have recently been raised as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma in veterans who served in Vietnam.¹³ The American War Library estimates that as of February 28, 2019, about 610,000 Americans who served on land in Vietnam or in the air over Vietnam between 1954 and 1975 are alive, and about 164,000 Americans who served at sea in Vietnam waters are alive.¹⁴ To that end, Psevdos and colleagues screened 97 US veterans who served in Vietnam and identified 50 who reported exposure to raw or undercooked fish while there.¹³ None had evidence of active C sinensis or O viverrini infection. Blood samples obtained from these veterans were analyzed for circulating C sinensis and O viverrini antibodies using an ELISA developed in South Korea and 12 blood samples tested positive for the trematodes. Imaging of extrahepatic and intrahepatic bile ducts was unyielding in all cases. One veteran diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma had repeated negative tests. However, the results of this study were challenged by several experts in this field because the authors did not report the sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA assay used.¹⁵

Serologic testing of US veterans who served in C sinensis and O viverrini–endemic countries for indolent infections with these parasites is not recommended at present.¹⁵ Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to develop sensitive and specific serologic assays, such as ELISA tests with recombinant antigens, to detect both acute and indolent infections caused by each biliary liver fluke in the US, including in patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma. We posit that testing and treatment of high-risk populations could lead to earlier detection and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, leading to improved overall survival in the population at risk.

Cholangiocarcinoma is a heterogeneous, highly aggressive cancer of the biliary tract epithelium with an overall 5-year relative survival rate of only 9%.^1,2 Although surgical resection of localized, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is associated with improved overall survival, most patients present with advanced disease not amenable to surgery due to a late onset of symptoms.² Recently, an increased incidence of cholangiocarcinoma has been reported in the United States.³ Although relatively rare in the US, cholangiocarcinoma is prevalent across large parts of Asia, including China, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, and Taiwan.²

Risk Factors

To date, risk factors for developing cholangiocarcinoma have not been elucidated. ^4,5 However, a growing body of literature suggests that chronic infection of genetically susceptible human subjects with Clonorchis sinensis ( C sinensis ) and Opisthorchis viverrini ( O viverrini ) plays a role. ^6,7 The life cycle of these food-borne zoonotic trematodes involves eggs discharged in the stool of infected humans, the definitive host. ^6,7 In nature, these eggs are ingested by freshwater snails, the intermediate host, where they undergo several developmental stages to form cercariae. Once released from snails into the water, free-swimming cercariae come in contact and penetrate freshwater fish where they encyst as metacercariae. Infection of humans occurs by ingesting undercooked, salted, pickled, or smoked freshwater fish infested with metacercariae. After ingestion, metacercariae excyst in the duodenum and ascend the biliary tract through the ampulla of Vater. They then mature into adult flukes that reside in small- and medium-sized intrahepatic biliary ducts. ^6,7

Although most infected people remain asymptomatic, untreated indolent infections with C sinensis and O viverrini may persist in peripheral intrahepatic bile ducts for as long as 30 years, which is the lifespan of the trematodes.^6,7 During this prolonged period, C sinensis and O viverrini feeding activities and their excretory-secretory products may damage bile duct epithelium and promote intense local inflammation.^6,7 Conceivably, these pathological processes could then provoke the epithelial desquamation, adenomatous hyperplasia, goblet cell metaplasia, periductal fibrosis, and granuloma formation that are conducive to initiation and progression of cholangiocarcinoma in genetically susceptible people.⁸ Accordingly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of chronic infections with C sinensis and O viverrini in humans and that chronic infections with these trematodes cause cholangiocarcinoma.⁹ The IARC concluded that chronic infections with C sinensis and O viverrini are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).⁹

Diagnosis

Presently, the diagnosis of C sinensis and O viverrini infection is based on microscopic identification and enumeration of the parasites’ eggs in weighted stool specimens using a formalin-ethyl acetate sedimentation concentration technique. ^6,7 This approach requires a labor-intensive test that is conducted by an experienced technician. The test has low specificity and sensitivity because eggs could be confused with those of nonpathogenic intestinal flukes that are morphologically similar and because eggs are not present in feces during all stages of the infection. Although diffuse dilatation of intrahepatic bile ducts by screening sonography is used to diagnose clonorchiasis in endemic areas, it has low sensitivity, particularly in patients with low-level C sinensis and O viverrin i infections. ¹⁰

To address the current diagnostic gap, several enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) have been developed for the diagnosis of C sinensis, including monoclonal antibody-based (mAb) ELISA and indirect antibody ELISA.^11,12 However, both have important limitations. The mAb ELISA detects only active infections while indirect antibody ELISA cross-reacts with other liver flukes.^11,12 Taken together, these data illustrate the difficulties in diagnosing asymptomatic individuals with low-burden C sinensis or O viverrini infections by existing laboratory methods.

Timely serodiagnosis of indolent C sinensis and O viverrini infections is important because these parasites have recently been raised as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma in veterans who served in Vietnam.¹³ The American War Library estimates that as of February 28, 2019, about 610,000 Americans who served on land in Vietnam or in the air over Vietnam between 1954 and 1975 are alive, and about 164,000 Americans who served at sea in Vietnam waters are alive.¹⁴ To that end, Psevdos and colleagues screened 97 US veterans who served in Vietnam and identified 50 who reported exposure to raw or undercooked fish while there.¹³ None had evidence of active C sinensis or O viverrini infection. Blood samples obtained from these veterans were analyzed for circulating C sinensis and O viverrini antibodies using an ELISA developed in South Korea and 12 blood samples tested positive for the trematodes. Imaging of extrahepatic and intrahepatic bile ducts was unyielding in all cases. One veteran diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma had repeated negative tests. However, the results of this study were challenged by several experts in this field because the authors did not report the sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA assay used.¹⁵

Serologic testing of US veterans who served in C sinensis and O viverrini–endemic countries for indolent infections with these parasites is not recommended at present.¹⁵ Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to develop sensitive and specific serologic assays, such as ELISA tests with recombinant antigens, to detect both acute and indolent infections caused by each biliary liver fluke in the US, including in patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma. We posit that testing and treatment of high-risk populations could lead to earlier detection and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, leading to improved overall survival in the population at risk.

Cholangiocarcinoma is a heterogeneous, highly aggressive cancer of the biliary tract epithelium with an overall 5-year relative survival rate of only 9%.^1,2 Although surgical resection of localized, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is associated with improved overall survival, most patients present with advanced disease not amenable to surgery due to a late onset of symptoms.² Recently, an increased incidence of cholangiocarcinoma has been reported in the United States.³ Although relatively rare in the US, cholangiocarcinoma is prevalent across large parts of Asia, including China, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, and Taiwan.²

Risk Factors

To date, risk factors for developing cholangiocarcinoma have not been elucidated. ^4,5 However, a growing body of literature suggests that chronic infection of genetically susceptible human subjects with Clonorchis sinensis ( C sinensis ) and Opisthorchis viverrini ( O viverrini ) plays a role. ^6,7 The life cycle of these food-borne zoonotic trematodes involves eggs discharged in the stool of infected humans, the definitive host. ^6,7 In nature, these eggs are ingested by freshwater snails, the intermediate host, where they undergo several developmental stages to form cercariae. Once released from snails into the water, free-swimming cercariae come in contact and penetrate freshwater fish where they encyst as metacercariae. Infection of humans occurs by ingesting undercooked, salted, pickled, or smoked freshwater fish infested with metacercariae. After ingestion, metacercariae excyst in the duodenum and ascend the biliary tract through the ampulla of Vater. They then mature into adult flukes that reside in small- and medium-sized intrahepatic biliary ducts. ^6,7

Although most infected people remain asymptomatic, untreated indolent infections with C sinensis and O viverrini may persist in peripheral intrahepatic bile ducts for as long as 30 years, which is the lifespan of the trematodes.^6,7 During this prolonged period, C sinensis and O viverrini feeding activities and their excretory-secretory products may damage bile duct epithelium and promote intense local inflammation.^6,7 Conceivably, these pathological processes could then provoke the epithelial desquamation, adenomatous hyperplasia, goblet cell metaplasia, periductal fibrosis, and granuloma formation that are conducive to initiation and progression of cholangiocarcinoma in genetically susceptible people.⁸ Accordingly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of chronic infections with C sinensis and O viverrini in humans and that chronic infections with these trematodes cause cholangiocarcinoma.⁹ The IARC concluded that chronic infections with C sinensis and O viverrini are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).⁹

Diagnosis

Presently, the diagnosis of C sinensis and O viverrini infection is based on microscopic identification and enumeration of the parasites’ eggs in weighted stool specimens using a formalin-ethyl acetate sedimentation concentration technique. ^6,7 This approach requires a labor-intensive test that is conducted by an experienced technician. The test has low specificity and sensitivity because eggs could be confused with those of nonpathogenic intestinal flukes that are morphologically similar and because eggs are not present in feces during all stages of the infection. Although diffuse dilatation of intrahepatic bile ducts by screening sonography is used to diagnose clonorchiasis in endemic areas, it has low sensitivity, particularly in patients with low-level C sinensis and O viverrin i infections. ¹⁰

To address the current diagnostic gap, several enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) have been developed for the diagnosis of C sinensis, including monoclonal antibody-based (mAb) ELISA and indirect antibody ELISA.^11,12 However, both have important limitations. The mAb ELISA detects only active infections while indirect antibody ELISA cross-reacts with other liver flukes.^11,12 Taken together, these data illustrate the difficulties in diagnosing asymptomatic individuals with low-burden C sinensis or O viverrini infections by existing laboratory methods.

Timely serodiagnosis of indolent C sinensis and O viverrini infections is important because these parasites have recently been raised as a risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma in veterans who served in Vietnam.¹³ The American War Library estimates that as of February 28, 2019, about 610,000 Americans who served on land in Vietnam or in the air over Vietnam between 1954 and 1975 are alive, and about 164,000 Americans who served at sea in Vietnam waters are alive.¹⁴ To that end, Psevdos and colleagues screened 97 US veterans who served in Vietnam and identified 50 who reported exposure to raw or undercooked fish while there.¹³ None had evidence of active C sinensis or O viverrini infection. Blood samples obtained from these veterans were analyzed for circulating C sinensis and O viverrini antibodies using an ELISA developed in South Korea and 12 blood samples tested positive for the trematodes. Imaging of extrahepatic and intrahepatic bile ducts was unyielding in all cases. One veteran diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma had repeated negative tests. However, the results of this study were challenged by several experts in this field because the authors did not report the sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA assay used.¹⁵

Serologic testing of US veterans who served in C sinensis and O viverrini–endemic countries for indolent infections with these parasites is not recommended at present.¹⁵ Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to develop sensitive and specific serologic assays, such as ELISA tests with recombinant antigens, to detect both acute and indolent infections caused by each biliary liver fluke in the US, including in patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma. We posit that testing and treatment of high-risk populations could lead to earlier detection and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, leading to improved overall survival in the population at risk.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.

That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that screening every single 30-year-old in the United States for three particular genetic conditions may not only save lives but be reasonably cost-effective.

Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.

Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.

That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that screening every single 30-year-old in the United States for three particular genetic conditions may not only save lives but be reasonably cost-effective.

Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.

Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.

That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that screening every single 30-year-old in the United States for three particular genetic conditions may not only save lives but be reasonably cost-effective.

Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.

Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.

Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?

A. Citalopram

B. Pravastatin

C. Donepezil

D. Isosorbide

E. Calcium

This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.

Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.¹ They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.

Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.² Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.³ They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).

Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.⁴ Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.

Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.⁵

Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁶ Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.⁷
 

Pearls

• Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
• Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.

2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.

3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.

4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.

5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.

6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.

7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.

An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.

Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?

A. Citalopram

B. Pravastatin

C. Donepezil

D. Isosorbide

E. Calcium

This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.

Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.¹ They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.

Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.² Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.³ They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).

Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.⁴ Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.

Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.⁵

Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁶ Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.⁷
 

Pearls

• Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
• Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.

2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.

3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.

4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.

5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.

6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.

7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.

An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.

Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?

A. Citalopram

B. Pravastatin

C. Donepezil

D. Isosorbide

E. Calcium

This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.

Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.¹ They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.

Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.² Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.³ They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).

Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.⁴ Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.

Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.⁵

Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁶ Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.⁷
 

Pearls

• Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
• Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.

2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.

3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.

4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.

5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.

6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.

7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.

When I was medical student, world famous behaviorist Dr. Joseph Wolpe was my mentor and taught me a great deal about anxiety disorders and phobias in his clinic. I did some of the original research on agoraphobias in the mid-1970s and have used the experience to treat many patients with phobias over the last 40-plus years.

Dr. Richard W. Cohen

Some of these patients with phobias had marked functional impairments in their social functioning and their adaptive skills. One such example – dental phobia – is a fear of going to the dentist and is commonly found in the general population.

Susan A. Cohen, DMD, a dentist who has practiced for more than 20 years, has seen this fear on a daily basis in her patients, ranging from mild to extreme. She says that most dental patients are able to overcome their fear and panic, but she estimates that about 5% have extreme dental phobias that prevented a patient from visiting the dentist. This can lead to poor dental health, affect self esteem, and destroy relationships.

The causes of dental phobia are multifactorial and as follows:

• Fear of pain and needles.
• Past bad experiences with dental procedures.
• Past history of abuse.
• Fear of loss of control in the dental chair.
• History of other phobias or anxiety disorders.

Dr. Cohen also states that the anticipatory anxiety of going to the dentist can be just as fearful as being in the dental chair. And she further states this anticipatory anxiety causes a great deal of noncompliance in keeping dental appointments. Patients missed dental appointments that were very necessary for their overall health. Dr. Cohen noticed that triggers to this specific dental anxiety are:

• Thoughts of being in the dental office.
• Thoughts of lying in the dental chair.
• Thoughts of hearing sounds of drills or seeing dental instruments.
• The smells of the dental office.
• Dental overhead lights.

Symptoms of dental phobias include chills, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, indigestion, and trembling. Dr. Cohen also notes that people with dental phobias can cry before visits, have insomnia, and experience panic attacks. These symptoms can further cause avoidance of visits, and can trigger anxiety and fears that do not match the danger.

Avoidance of treatment often leads to poor dental health, periodontal disease, tooth loss, and decayed teeth, but also may contribute to heart problems, diabetes, and undetected carcinomas. Noncompliance with dental care affects general well being and self esteem, and may cause chronic pain, sleep problems, and embarrassment. It may also affect performance in work and school, and can cause social isolation.

The good news is that psychiatric treatment can be very helpful in treating dental phobias. Exposure therapy in vivo and in vitro with systematic desensitization and flooding can decrease significantly the fears, panic, and avoidance some dental patients experience. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can change the way patients see and respond to the situations that trigger symptoms.

Additionally, acupuncture can reduce the anxiety that patients feel about dental visits, and distraction techniques such as music and television can be very helpful during dental appointments. Guided imagery using deep breathing exercises with relaxation, visualization, and positive suggestion can create a sense of well-being and calmness. Hypnosis has also been shown to decrease the stress of being in a dental office. Nitrous oxide and oral or IV sedation may be a helpful last resort.

It is important for a person with dental phobias to be referred to a caring dentist who is sensitive to anxiety, and choose a dentist who will listen to and help the patient come up with signals, such as raising their hand, to temporarily stop a dental procedure. This technique will help the dental patient to avoid experiencing a total loss of control and help them feel less overwhelmed.

Dr. Cohen also says that it is helpful to visit the dentist at a less busy time of the day so there are fewer dental sounds and anxiety triggers in the office.

I have found that behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding in vivo and in vitro is extremely helpful in helping patients with extreme dental phobias overcome their fears and become more compliant with their dental treatments. Through the use of these techniques, dental phobias – and their emotional and physical sequelae – may be alleviated together.

Dr. Richard W. Cohen is a psychiatrist who has been in private practice for more than 40 years and is on the editorial advisory board for Clinical Psychiatry News. Dr. Susan A. Cohen has practiced dentistry for over 20 years. The Cohens, who are married, are based in Philadelphia.

When I was medical student, world famous behaviorist Dr. Joseph Wolpe was my mentor and taught me a great deal about anxiety disorders and phobias in his clinic. I did some of the original research on agoraphobias in the mid-1970s and have used the experience to treat many patients with phobias over the last 40-plus years.

Dr. Richard W. Cohen

Some of these patients with phobias had marked functional impairments in their social functioning and their adaptive skills. One such example – dental phobia – is a fear of going to the dentist and is commonly found in the general population.

Susan A. Cohen, DMD, a dentist who has practiced for more than 20 years, has seen this fear on a daily basis in her patients, ranging from mild to extreme. She says that most dental patients are able to overcome their fear and panic, but she estimates that about 5% have extreme dental phobias that prevented a patient from visiting the dentist. This can lead to poor dental health, affect self esteem, and destroy relationships.

The causes of dental phobia are multifactorial and as follows:

• Fear of pain and needles.
• Past bad experiences with dental procedures.
• Past history of abuse.
• Fear of loss of control in the dental chair.
• History of other phobias or anxiety disorders.

Dr. Cohen also states that the anticipatory anxiety of going to the dentist can be just as fearful as being in the dental chair. And she further states this anticipatory anxiety causes a great deal of noncompliance in keeping dental appointments. Patients missed dental appointments that were very necessary for their overall health. Dr. Cohen noticed that triggers to this specific dental anxiety are:

• Thoughts of being in the dental office.
• Thoughts of lying in the dental chair.
• Thoughts of hearing sounds of drills or seeing dental instruments.
• The smells of the dental office.
• Dental overhead lights.

Symptoms of dental phobias include chills, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, indigestion, and trembling. Dr. Cohen also notes that people with dental phobias can cry before visits, have insomnia, and experience panic attacks. These symptoms can further cause avoidance of visits, and can trigger anxiety and fears that do not match the danger.

Avoidance of treatment often leads to poor dental health, periodontal disease, tooth loss, and decayed teeth, but also may contribute to heart problems, diabetes, and undetected carcinomas. Noncompliance with dental care affects general well being and self esteem, and may cause chronic pain, sleep problems, and embarrassment. It may also affect performance in work and school, and can cause social isolation.

The good news is that psychiatric treatment can be very helpful in treating dental phobias. Exposure therapy in vivo and in vitro with systematic desensitization and flooding can decrease significantly the fears, panic, and avoidance some dental patients experience. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can change the way patients see and respond to the situations that trigger symptoms.

Additionally, acupuncture can reduce the anxiety that patients feel about dental visits, and distraction techniques such as music and television can be very helpful during dental appointments. Guided imagery using deep breathing exercises with relaxation, visualization, and positive suggestion can create a sense of well-being and calmness. Hypnosis has also been shown to decrease the stress of being in a dental office. Nitrous oxide and oral or IV sedation may be a helpful last resort.

It is important for a person with dental phobias to be referred to a caring dentist who is sensitive to anxiety, and choose a dentist who will listen to and help the patient come up with signals, such as raising their hand, to temporarily stop a dental procedure. This technique will help the dental patient to avoid experiencing a total loss of control and help them feel less overwhelmed.

Dr. Cohen also says that it is helpful to visit the dentist at a less busy time of the day so there are fewer dental sounds and anxiety triggers in the office.

I have found that behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding in vivo and in vitro is extremely helpful in helping patients with extreme dental phobias overcome their fears and become more compliant with their dental treatments. Through the use of these techniques, dental phobias – and their emotional and physical sequelae – may be alleviated together.

Dr. Richard W. Cohen is a psychiatrist who has been in private practice for more than 40 years and is on the editorial advisory board for Clinical Psychiatry News. Dr. Susan A. Cohen has practiced dentistry for over 20 years. The Cohens, who are married, are based in Philadelphia.

When I was medical student, world famous behaviorist Dr. Joseph Wolpe was my mentor and taught me a great deal about anxiety disorders and phobias in his clinic. I did some of the original research on agoraphobias in the mid-1970s and have used the experience to treat many patients with phobias over the last 40-plus years.

Dr. Richard W. Cohen

Some of these patients with phobias had marked functional impairments in their social functioning and their adaptive skills. One such example – dental phobia – is a fear of going to the dentist and is commonly found in the general population.

Susan A. Cohen, DMD, a dentist who has practiced for more than 20 years, has seen this fear on a daily basis in her patients, ranging from mild to extreme. She says that most dental patients are able to overcome their fear and panic, but she estimates that about 5% have extreme dental phobias that prevented a patient from visiting the dentist. This can lead to poor dental health, affect self esteem, and destroy relationships.

The causes of dental phobia are multifactorial and as follows:

• Fear of pain and needles.
• Past bad experiences with dental procedures.
• Past history of abuse.
• Fear of loss of control in the dental chair.
• History of other phobias or anxiety disorders.

Dr. Cohen also states that the anticipatory anxiety of going to the dentist can be just as fearful as being in the dental chair. And she further states this anticipatory anxiety causes a great deal of noncompliance in keeping dental appointments. Patients missed dental appointments that were very necessary for their overall health. Dr. Cohen noticed that triggers to this specific dental anxiety are:

• Thoughts of being in the dental office.
• Thoughts of lying in the dental chair.
• Thoughts of hearing sounds of drills or seeing dental instruments.
• The smells of the dental office.
• Dental overhead lights.

Symptoms of dental phobias include chills, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, indigestion, and trembling. Dr. Cohen also notes that people with dental phobias can cry before visits, have insomnia, and experience panic attacks. These symptoms can further cause avoidance of visits, and can trigger anxiety and fears that do not match the danger.

Avoidance of treatment often leads to poor dental health, periodontal disease, tooth loss, and decayed teeth, but also may contribute to heart problems, diabetes, and undetected carcinomas. Noncompliance with dental care affects general well being and self esteem, and may cause chronic pain, sleep problems, and embarrassment. It may also affect performance in work and school, and can cause social isolation.

The good news is that psychiatric treatment can be very helpful in treating dental phobias. Exposure therapy in vivo and in vitro with systematic desensitization and flooding can decrease significantly the fears, panic, and avoidance some dental patients experience. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can change the way patients see and respond to the situations that trigger symptoms.

Additionally, acupuncture can reduce the anxiety that patients feel about dental visits, and distraction techniques such as music and television can be very helpful during dental appointments. Guided imagery using deep breathing exercises with relaxation, visualization, and positive suggestion can create a sense of well-being and calmness. Hypnosis has also been shown to decrease the stress of being in a dental office. Nitrous oxide and oral or IV sedation may be a helpful last resort.

It is important for a person with dental phobias to be referred to a caring dentist who is sensitive to anxiety, and choose a dentist who will listen to and help the patient come up with signals, such as raising their hand, to temporarily stop a dental procedure. This technique will help the dental patient to avoid experiencing a total loss of control and help them feel less overwhelmed.

Dr. Cohen also says that it is helpful to visit the dentist at a less busy time of the day so there are fewer dental sounds and anxiety triggers in the office.

I have found that behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding in vivo and in vitro is extremely helpful in helping patients with extreme dental phobias overcome their fears and become more compliant with their dental treatments. Through the use of these techniques, dental phobias – and their emotional and physical sequelae – may be alleviated together.

Dr. Richard W. Cohen is a psychiatrist who has been in private practice for more than 40 years and is on the editorial advisory board for Clinical Psychiatry News. Dr. Susan A. Cohen has practiced dentistry for over 20 years. The Cohens, who are married, are based in Philadelphia.

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There is wonderful news in the field of hybrid closed-loop pump technology because the Medtronic 780G system was just approved. I can’t tell you how happy this makes me because we’ve all been waiting for this seemingly forever and ever. This isn’t just a small upgrade from the 770G. It’s a quantum leap from the 770G to the 780G. The 780G has newer algorithms, a new sensor, and a longer-lasting infusion set.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

It’s been used since 2020 in Europe, so we have good data on how well it works. Frankly, I think it works really well. We’ve seen nice improvements in [hemoglobin] A1c, time in range, other glycemic metrics, and patient satisfaction in studies done in Europe.

Now, I’ve never had the system to use in one of my patients. I always say I never know a system until I see it in use in my own patients, but let me tell you what I’ve read.

First, it has something called meal-detection technology with autocorrection boluses every 5 minutes. If this works, it can be a huge win for our patients because the problem my patients have is with mealtime dosing. They often dose late, or they may not dose enough insulin for the carbohydrates. That’s where the issues are.

All these hybrid closed-loop systems, this one included, show that the best improvements in glycemia are overnight. I’m hoping that this one shows some nice improvements in daytime glycemia as well. Stay tuned and I’ll let you know once I’ve been using it.

Next, it has adjustable targets down to 100. This is the lowest target for any hybrid closed-loop system. It has an extended-wear infusion set that lasts for 7 days. This infusion set is already available but works with this new system.

Finally, it has a new sensor. It looks like the old sensors, but it’s the Guardian 4, which requires much fewer finger sticks. Now, I’m not entirely sure about how often one has to do a finger stick. I know one has to do with finger sticking to initiate auto mode, or what they call SmartGuard, but I don’t know whether you ever have to do it again. I know for sure that you have to do it again if you fall out of the automated mode into manual mode. Once you’re in SmartGuard, I believe there are no further finger-stick calibrations required.

If people are already on the 770G system, this is just a software update that is presumably easy to upgrade to the 780G. Now, the physical pieces ... If someone doesn’t already have the Guardian 4 sensor or the extended-wear infusion set, they’ll have to get those. The software update to make the 770G increase to the 780G should just come through the cloud. I don’t know when that’s going to happen.

I do know that preorders for this system, if you want to buy the new physical system, start on May 15. The shipping of the new 780G system should occur in the United States toward the end of this summer.

I’m so excited. I think this is really going to benefit my patients. I can’t wait to start using it and letting patients see how these algorithms work and how they really help patients improve their glucose control.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There is wonderful news in the field of hybrid closed-loop pump technology because the Medtronic 780G system was just approved. I can’t tell you how happy this makes me because we’ve all been waiting for this seemingly forever and ever. This isn’t just a small upgrade from the 770G. It’s a quantum leap from the 770G to the 780G. The 780G has newer algorithms, a new sensor, and a longer-lasting infusion set.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

It’s been used since 2020 in Europe, so we have good data on how well it works. Frankly, I think it works really well. We’ve seen nice improvements in [hemoglobin] A1c, time in range, other glycemic metrics, and patient satisfaction in studies done in Europe.

Now, I’ve never had the system to use in one of my patients. I always say I never know a system until I see it in use in my own patients, but let me tell you what I’ve read.

First, it has something called meal-detection technology with autocorrection boluses every 5 minutes. If this works, it can be a huge win for our patients because the problem my patients have is with mealtime dosing. They often dose late, or they may not dose enough insulin for the carbohydrates. That’s where the issues are.

All these hybrid closed-loop systems, this one included, show that the best improvements in glycemia are overnight. I’m hoping that this one shows some nice improvements in daytime glycemia as well. Stay tuned and I’ll let you know once I’ve been using it.

Next, it has adjustable targets down to 100. This is the lowest target for any hybrid closed-loop system. It has an extended-wear infusion set that lasts for 7 days. This infusion set is already available but works with this new system.

Finally, it has a new sensor. It looks like the old sensors, but it’s the Guardian 4, which requires much fewer finger sticks. Now, I’m not entirely sure about how often one has to do a finger stick. I know one has to do with finger sticking to initiate auto mode, or what they call SmartGuard, but I don’t know whether you ever have to do it again. I know for sure that you have to do it again if you fall out of the automated mode into manual mode. Once you’re in SmartGuard, I believe there are no further finger-stick calibrations required.

If people are already on the 770G system, this is just a software update that is presumably easy to upgrade to the 780G. Now, the physical pieces ... If someone doesn’t already have the Guardian 4 sensor or the extended-wear infusion set, they’ll have to get those. The software update to make the 770G increase to the 780G should just come through the cloud. I don’t know when that’s going to happen.

I do know that preorders for this system, if you want to buy the new physical system, start on May 15. The shipping of the new 780G system should occur in the United States toward the end of this summer.

I’m so excited. I think this is really going to benefit my patients. I can’t wait to start using it and letting patients see how these algorithms work and how they really help patients improve their glucose control.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There is wonderful news in the field of hybrid closed-loop pump technology because the Medtronic 780G system was just approved. I can’t tell you how happy this makes me because we’ve all been waiting for this seemingly forever and ever. This isn’t just a small upgrade from the 770G. It’s a quantum leap from the 770G to the 780G. The 780G has newer algorithms, a new sensor, and a longer-lasting infusion set.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

It’s been used since 2020 in Europe, so we have good data on how well it works. Frankly, I think it works really well. We’ve seen nice improvements in [hemoglobin] A1c, time in range, other glycemic metrics, and patient satisfaction in studies done in Europe.

Now, I’ve never had the system to use in one of my patients. I always say I never know a system until I see it in use in my own patients, but let me tell you what I’ve read.

First, it has something called meal-detection technology with autocorrection boluses every 5 minutes. If this works, it can be a huge win for our patients because the problem my patients have is with mealtime dosing. They often dose late, or they may not dose enough insulin for the carbohydrates. That’s where the issues are.

All these hybrid closed-loop systems, this one included, show that the best improvements in glycemia are overnight. I’m hoping that this one shows some nice improvements in daytime glycemia as well. Stay tuned and I’ll let you know once I’ve been using it.

Next, it has adjustable targets down to 100. This is the lowest target for any hybrid closed-loop system. It has an extended-wear infusion set that lasts for 7 days. This infusion set is already available but works with this new system.

Finally, it has a new sensor. It looks like the old sensors, but it’s the Guardian 4, which requires much fewer finger sticks. Now, I’m not entirely sure about how often one has to do a finger stick. I know one has to do with finger sticking to initiate auto mode, or what they call SmartGuard, but I don’t know whether you ever have to do it again. I know for sure that you have to do it again if you fall out of the automated mode into manual mode. Once you’re in SmartGuard, I believe there are no further finger-stick calibrations required.

If people are already on the 770G system, this is just a software update that is presumably easy to upgrade to the 780G. Now, the physical pieces ... If someone doesn’t already have the Guardian 4 sensor or the extended-wear infusion set, they’ll have to get those. The software update to make the 770G increase to the 780G should just come through the cloud. I don’t know when that’s going to happen.

I do know that preorders for this system, if you want to buy the new physical system, start on May 15. The shipping of the new 780G system should occur in the United States toward the end of this summer.

I’m so excited. I think this is really going to benefit my patients. I can’t wait to start using it and letting patients see how these algorithms work and how they really help patients improve their glucose control.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.

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

Many years ago, at the conclusion of a talk I gave on bone health in teens with anorexia nervosa, I was approached by a colleague, Ann Neumeyer, MD, medical director of the Lurie Center for Autism at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who asked about bone health in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

When I explained that there was little information about bone health in this patient population, she suggested that we learn and investigate together. Ann explained that she had observed that some of her patients with ASD had suffered fractures with minimal trauma, raising her concern about their bone health.

This was the beginning of a partnership that led us down the path of many grant submissions, some of which were funded and others that were not, to explore and investigate bone outcomes in children with ASD.

Over the years it has become very clear that these patients are at high risk for low bone density at multiple sites. This applies to prepubertal children as well as older children and adolescents. One study showed that 28% and 33% of children with ASD 8-14 years old had very low bone density (z scores of ≤ –2) at the spine and hip, respectively, compared with 0% of typically developing controls.

Studies that have used sophisticated imaging techniques to determine bone strength have shown that it is lower at the forearm and lower leg in children with ASD versus neurotypical children.

These findings are of particular concern during the childhood and teenage years when bone is typically accrued at a rapid rate. A normal rate of bone accrual at this time of life is essential for optimal bone health in later life. While children with ASD gain bone mass at a similar rate as neurotypical controls, they start at a deficit and seem unable to “catch up.”

Further, people with ASD are more prone to certain kinds of fracture than those without the condition. For example, both children and adults with ASD have a high risk for hip fracture, while adult women with ASD have a higher risk for forearm and spine fractures. There is some protection against forearm fractures in children and adult men, probably because of markedly lower levels of physical activity, which would reduce fall risk.

Many of Ann’s patients with ASD had unusual or restricted diets, low levels of physical activity, and were on multiple medications. We have since learned that some factors that contribute to low bone density in ASD include lower levels of weight-bearing physical activity; lower muscle mass; low muscle tone; suboptimal dietary calcium and vitamin D intake; lower vitamin D levels; higher levels of the hormone cortisol, which has deleterious effects on bone; and use of medications that can lower bone density.

In order to mitigate the risk for low bone density and fractures, it is important to optimize physical activity while considering the child’s ability to safely engage in weight-bearing sports.

High-impact sports like gymnastics and jumping, or cross-impact sports like soccer, basketball, field hockey, and lacrosse, are particularly useful in this context, but many patients with ASD are not able to easily engage in typical team sports.

For such children, a prescribed amount of time spent walking, as well as weight and resistance training, could be helpful. The latter would also help increase muscle mass, a key modulator of bone health.

Other strategies include ensuring sufficient intake of calcium and vitamin D through diet and supplements. This can be a particular challenge for children with ASD on specialized diets, such as a gluten-free or dairy-free diet, which are deficient in calcium and vitamin D. Health care providers should check for intake of dairy and dairy products, as well as serum vitamin D levels, and prescribe supplements as needed.

All children should get at least 600 IUs of vitamin D and 1,000-1,300 mg of elemental calcium daily. That said, many with ASD need much higher quantities of vitamin D (1,000-4,000 IUs or more) to maintain levels in the normal range. This is particularly true for dark-skinned children and children with obesity, as well as those who have medical disorders that cause malabsorption.

Higher cortisol levels in the ASD patient population are harder to manage. Efforts to ease anxiety and depression may help reduce cortisol levels. Medications such as protein pump inhibitors and glucocorticosteroids can compromise bone health.

In addition, certain antipsychotics can cause marked elevations in prolactin which, in turn, can lower levels of estrogen and testosterone, which are very important for bone health. In such cases, the clinician should consider switching patients to a different, less detrimental medication or adjust the current medication so that patients receive the lowest possible effective dose.

Obesity is associated with increased fracture risk and with suboptimal bone accrual during childhood, so ensuring a healthy diet is important. This includes avoiding sugary beverages and reducing intake of processed food and juice.

Sometimes, particularly when a child has low bone density and a history of several low-trauma fractures, medications such as bisphosphonates should be considered to increase bone density.

Above all, as physicians who manage ASD, it is essential that we raise awareness about bone health among our colleagues, patients, and their families to help mitigate fracture risk.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology at Mass General for Children, Boston.

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

Many years ago, at the conclusion of a talk I gave on bone health in teens with anorexia nervosa, I was approached by a colleague, Ann Neumeyer, MD, medical director of the Lurie Center for Autism at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who asked about bone health in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

When I explained that there was little information about bone health in this patient population, she suggested that we learn and investigate together. Ann explained that she had observed that some of her patients with ASD had suffered fractures with minimal trauma, raising her concern about their bone health.

This was the beginning of a partnership that led us down the path of many grant submissions, some of which were funded and others that were not, to explore and investigate bone outcomes in children with ASD.

Over the years it has become very clear that these patients are at high risk for low bone density at multiple sites. This applies to prepubertal children as well as older children and adolescents. One study showed that 28% and 33% of children with ASD 8-14 years old had very low bone density (z scores of ≤ –2) at the spine and hip, respectively, compared with 0% of typically developing controls.

Studies that have used sophisticated imaging techniques to determine bone strength have shown that it is lower at the forearm and lower leg in children with ASD versus neurotypical children.

These findings are of particular concern during the childhood and teenage years when bone is typically accrued at a rapid rate. A normal rate of bone accrual at this time of life is essential for optimal bone health in later life. While children with ASD gain bone mass at a similar rate as neurotypical controls, they start at a deficit and seem unable to “catch up.”

Further, people with ASD are more prone to certain kinds of fracture than those without the condition. For example, both children and adults with ASD have a high risk for hip fracture, while adult women with ASD have a higher risk for forearm and spine fractures. There is some protection against forearm fractures in children and adult men, probably because of markedly lower levels of physical activity, which would reduce fall risk.

Many of Ann’s patients with ASD had unusual or restricted diets, low levels of physical activity, and were on multiple medications. We have since learned that some factors that contribute to low bone density in ASD include lower levels of weight-bearing physical activity; lower muscle mass; low muscle tone; suboptimal dietary calcium and vitamin D intake; lower vitamin D levels; higher levels of the hormone cortisol, which has deleterious effects on bone; and use of medications that can lower bone density.

In order to mitigate the risk for low bone density and fractures, it is important to optimize physical activity while considering the child’s ability to safely engage in weight-bearing sports.

High-impact sports like gymnastics and jumping, or cross-impact sports like soccer, basketball, field hockey, and lacrosse, are particularly useful in this context, but many patients with ASD are not able to easily engage in typical team sports.

For such children, a prescribed amount of time spent walking, as well as weight and resistance training, could be helpful. The latter would also help increase muscle mass, a key modulator of bone health.

Other strategies include ensuring sufficient intake of calcium and vitamin D through diet and supplements. This can be a particular challenge for children with ASD on specialized diets, such as a gluten-free or dairy-free diet, which are deficient in calcium and vitamin D. Health care providers should check for intake of dairy and dairy products, as well as serum vitamin D levels, and prescribe supplements as needed.

All children should get at least 600 IUs of vitamin D and 1,000-1,300 mg of elemental calcium daily. That said, many with ASD need much higher quantities of vitamin D (1,000-4,000 IUs or more) to maintain levels in the normal range. This is particularly true for dark-skinned children and children with obesity, as well as those who have medical disorders that cause malabsorption.

Higher cortisol levels in the ASD patient population are harder to manage. Efforts to ease anxiety and depression may help reduce cortisol levels. Medications such as protein pump inhibitors and glucocorticosteroids can compromise bone health.

In addition, certain antipsychotics can cause marked elevations in prolactin which, in turn, can lower levels of estrogen and testosterone, which are very important for bone health. In such cases, the clinician should consider switching patients to a different, less detrimental medication or adjust the current medication so that patients receive the lowest possible effective dose.

Obesity is associated with increased fracture risk and with suboptimal bone accrual during childhood, so ensuring a healthy diet is important. This includes avoiding sugary beverages and reducing intake of processed food and juice.

Sometimes, particularly when a child has low bone density and a history of several low-trauma fractures, medications such as bisphosphonates should be considered to increase bone density.

Above all, as physicians who manage ASD, it is essential that we raise awareness about bone health among our colleagues, patients, and their families to help mitigate fracture risk.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology at Mass General for Children, Boston.

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

Many years ago, at the conclusion of a talk I gave on bone health in teens with anorexia nervosa, I was approached by a colleague, Ann Neumeyer, MD, medical director of the Lurie Center for Autism at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who asked about bone health in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

When I explained that there was little information about bone health in this patient population, she suggested that we learn and investigate together. Ann explained that she had observed that some of her patients with ASD had suffered fractures with minimal trauma, raising her concern about their bone health.

This was the beginning of a partnership that led us down the path of many grant submissions, some of which were funded and others that were not, to explore and investigate bone outcomes in children with ASD.

Over the years it has become very clear that these patients are at high risk for low bone density at multiple sites. This applies to prepubertal children as well as older children and adolescents. One study showed that 28% and 33% of children with ASD 8-14 years old had very low bone density (z scores of ≤ –2) at the spine and hip, respectively, compared with 0% of typically developing controls.

Studies that have used sophisticated imaging techniques to determine bone strength have shown that it is lower at the forearm and lower leg in children with ASD versus neurotypical children.

These findings are of particular concern during the childhood and teenage years when bone is typically accrued at a rapid rate. A normal rate of bone accrual at this time of life is essential for optimal bone health in later life. While children with ASD gain bone mass at a similar rate as neurotypical controls, they start at a deficit and seem unable to “catch up.”

Further, people with ASD are more prone to certain kinds of fracture than those without the condition. For example, both children and adults with ASD have a high risk for hip fracture, while adult women with ASD have a higher risk for forearm and spine fractures. There is some protection against forearm fractures in children and adult men, probably because of markedly lower levels of physical activity, which would reduce fall risk.

Many of Ann’s patients with ASD had unusual or restricted diets, low levels of physical activity, and were on multiple medications. We have since learned that some factors that contribute to low bone density in ASD include lower levels of weight-bearing physical activity; lower muscle mass; low muscle tone; suboptimal dietary calcium and vitamin D intake; lower vitamin D levels; higher levels of the hormone cortisol, which has deleterious effects on bone; and use of medications that can lower bone density.

In order to mitigate the risk for low bone density and fractures, it is important to optimize physical activity while considering the child’s ability to safely engage in weight-bearing sports.

High-impact sports like gymnastics and jumping, or cross-impact sports like soccer, basketball, field hockey, and lacrosse, are particularly useful in this context, but many patients with ASD are not able to easily engage in typical team sports.

For such children, a prescribed amount of time spent walking, as well as weight and resistance training, could be helpful. The latter would also help increase muscle mass, a key modulator of bone health.

Other strategies include ensuring sufficient intake of calcium and vitamin D through diet and supplements. This can be a particular challenge for children with ASD on specialized diets, such as a gluten-free or dairy-free diet, which are deficient in calcium and vitamin D. Health care providers should check for intake of dairy and dairy products, as well as serum vitamin D levels, and prescribe supplements as needed.

All children should get at least 600 IUs of vitamin D and 1,000-1,300 mg of elemental calcium daily. That said, many with ASD need much higher quantities of vitamin D (1,000-4,000 IUs or more) to maintain levels in the normal range. This is particularly true for dark-skinned children and children with obesity, as well as those who have medical disorders that cause malabsorption.

Higher cortisol levels in the ASD patient population are harder to manage. Efforts to ease anxiety and depression may help reduce cortisol levels. Medications such as protein pump inhibitors and glucocorticosteroids can compromise bone health.

In addition, certain antipsychotics can cause marked elevations in prolactin which, in turn, can lower levels of estrogen and testosterone, which are very important for bone health. In such cases, the clinician should consider switching patients to a different, less detrimental medication or adjust the current medication so that patients receive the lowest possible effective dose.

Obesity is associated with increased fracture risk and with suboptimal bone accrual during childhood, so ensuring a healthy diet is important. This includes avoiding sugary beverages and reducing intake of processed food and juice.

Sometimes, particularly when a child has low bone density and a history of several low-trauma fractures, medications such as bisphosphonates should be considered to increase bone density.

Above all, as physicians who manage ASD, it is essential that we raise awareness about bone health among our colleagues, patients, and their families to help mitigate fracture risk.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology at Mass General for Children, Boston.

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

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

All the participants in the study I am going to tell you about this week died. And three of them died twice. But their deaths provide us with a fascinating window into the complex electrochemistry of the dying brain. What we might be looking at, indeed, is the physiologic correlate of the near-death experience.

The concept of the near-death experience is culturally ubiquitous. And though the content seems to track along culture lines – Western Christians are more likely to report seeing guardian angels, while Hindus are more likely to report seeing messengers of the god of death – certain factors seem to transcend culture: an out-of-body experience; a feeling of peace; and, of course, the light at the end of the tunnel.

As a materialist, I won’t discuss the possibility that these commonalities reflect some metaphysical structure to the afterlife. More likely, it seems to me, is that the commonalities result from the fact that the experience is mediated by our brains, and our brains, when dying, may be more alike than different.

We are talking about this study, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Jimo Borjigin and her team.

Dr. Borjigin studies the neural correlates of consciousness, perhaps one of the biggest questions in all of science today. To wit, if consciousness is derived from processes in the brain, what set of processes are minimally necessary for consciousness?

The study in question follows four unconscious patients –comatose patients, really – as life-sustaining support was withdrawn, up until the moment of death. Three had suffered severe anoxic brain injury in the setting of prolonged cardiac arrest. Though the heart was restarted, the brain damage was severe. The fourth had a large brain hemorrhage. All four patients were thus comatose and, though not brain-dead, unresponsive – with the lowest possible Glasgow Coma Scale score. No response to outside stimuli.

The families had made the decision to withdraw life support – to remove the breathing tube – but agreed to enroll their loved one in the study.

The team applied EEG leads to the head, EKG leads to the chest, and other monitoring equipment to observe the physiologic changes that occurred as the comatose and unresponsive patient died.

As the heart rhythm evolved from this:

PNAS

PNAS

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. Dr. Wilson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

All the participants in the study I am going to tell you about this week died. And three of them died twice. But their deaths provide us with a fascinating window into the complex electrochemistry of the dying brain. What we might be looking at, indeed, is the physiologic correlate of the near-death experience.

The concept of the near-death experience is culturally ubiquitous. And though the content seems to track along culture lines – Western Christians are more likely to report seeing guardian angels, while Hindus are more likely to report seeing messengers of the god of death – certain factors seem to transcend culture: an out-of-body experience; a feeling of peace; and, of course, the light at the end of the tunnel.

As a materialist, I won’t discuss the possibility that these commonalities reflect some metaphysical structure to the afterlife. More likely, it seems to me, is that the commonalities result from the fact that the experience is mediated by our brains, and our brains, when dying, may be more alike than different.

We are talking about this study, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Jimo Borjigin and her team.

Dr. Borjigin studies the neural correlates of consciousness, perhaps one of the biggest questions in all of science today. To wit, if consciousness is derived from processes in the brain, what set of processes are minimally necessary for consciousness?

The study in question follows four unconscious patients –comatose patients, really – as life-sustaining support was withdrawn, up until the moment of death. Three had suffered severe anoxic brain injury in the setting of prolonged cardiac arrest. Though the heart was restarted, the brain damage was severe. The fourth had a large brain hemorrhage. All four patients were thus comatose and, though not brain-dead, unresponsive – with the lowest possible Glasgow Coma Scale score. No response to outside stimuli.

The families had made the decision to withdraw life support – to remove the breathing tube – but agreed to enroll their loved one in the study.

The team applied EEG leads to the head, EKG leads to the chest, and other monitoring equipment to observe the physiologic changes that occurred as the comatose and unresponsive patient died.

As the heart rhythm evolved from this:

PNAS

PNAS

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. Dr. Wilson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

All the participants in the study I am going to tell you about this week died. And three of them died twice. But their deaths provide us with a fascinating window into the complex electrochemistry of the dying brain. What we might be looking at, indeed, is the physiologic correlate of the near-death experience.

The concept of the near-death experience is culturally ubiquitous. And though the content seems to track along culture lines – Western Christians are more likely to report seeing guardian angels, while Hindus are more likely to report seeing messengers of the god of death – certain factors seem to transcend culture: an out-of-body experience; a feeling of peace; and, of course, the light at the end of the tunnel.

As a materialist, I won’t discuss the possibility that these commonalities reflect some metaphysical structure to the afterlife. More likely, it seems to me, is that the commonalities result from the fact that the experience is mediated by our brains, and our brains, when dying, may be more alike than different.

We are talking about this study, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Jimo Borjigin and her team.

Dr. Borjigin studies the neural correlates of consciousness, perhaps one of the biggest questions in all of science today. To wit, if consciousness is derived from processes in the brain, what set of processes are minimally necessary for consciousness?

The study in question follows four unconscious patients –comatose patients, really – as life-sustaining support was withdrawn, up until the moment of death. Three had suffered severe anoxic brain injury in the setting of prolonged cardiac arrest. Though the heart was restarted, the brain damage was severe. The fourth had a large brain hemorrhage. All four patients were thus comatose and, though not brain-dead, unresponsive – with the lowest possible Glasgow Coma Scale score. No response to outside stimuli.

The families had made the decision to withdraw life support – to remove the breathing tube – but agreed to enroll their loved one in the study.

The team applied EEG leads to the head, EKG leads to the chest, and other monitoring equipment to observe the physiologic changes that occurred as the comatose and unresponsive patient died.

As the heart rhythm evolved from this:

PNAS

PNAS

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS/F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

PNAS

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. Dr. Wilson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

When we talk about advocacy in rheumatology, we think about our patients and how we can help them gain access to the best care. Whether it’s filling out a prior authorization form or testifying before Congress, it is an action we perform that ultimately helps our patients achieve that care. We are familiar with many of the obstacles that block the path to the best care and interfere with our patient-doctor relationships. Much work has been done to pass legislation in the states to mitigate some of those obstacles, such as unreasonable step therapy regimens, nonmedical switching, and copay accumulators.

CSRO

Unfortunately, that state legislation does not cover patients who work for companies that are self-insured. Self-insured employers, which account for about 60% of America’s workers, directly pay for the health benefits offered to employees instead of buying “fully funded” insurance plans. Most of those self-funded plans fall under “ERISA” protections and are regulated by the federal Department of Labor. ERISA stands for Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law, which was enacted in 1974, also covers employee health plans. These plans must act as a fiduciary, meaning they must look after the well-being of the employees, including their finances and those of the plan itself.

The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) has learned of a number of issues involving patients who work for self-funded companies, regulated by ERISA. One such issue is that of mandated “white bagging.” White bagging has been discussed in “Rheum for Action” in the past. There is a long list of white-bagging problems, including dosing issues, lack of “chain of custody” with the medications, delays in treatment, mandatory up-front payments by the patient, and wastage of unused medication. However, there is another issue that is of concern not only to the employees (our patients) but to the employer as well.

Employers’ fiduciary responsibility

As mentioned earlier, the employers who self insure are responsible for the financial well-being of their employee and the plan itself. Therefore, if certain practices are mandated within the health plan that harm our patients or the plan financially, the company could be in violation of their fiduciary duty. Rheumatologists have said that buying and billing the drug to the medical side of the health plan in many cases costs much less than white bagging. Conceivably, that could result in breach of an employer’s fiduciary duty to their employee.

Evidence for violating fiduciary duty

CSRO recently received redacted receipts comparing costs between the two models of drug acquisition for a patient in an ERISA plan. White bagging for the patient occurred in 2021, and in 2022 an exemption was granted for the rheumatologist to buy and bill the administered medication. Unfortunately, the exemption to buy and bill in 2023 was denied and continues to be denied (as of this writing). A comparison of the receipts revealed the company was charged over $40,000 for the white-bagged medication in 2021, and the patient’s cost share for that year was $525. Under the traditional buy-and-bill acquisition model in 2022, the company was charged around $12,000 for the medication and the patient’s cost share was $30. There is a clear difference in cost to the employee and plan between the two acquisition models.

Is this major company unknowingly violating its fiduciary duty by mandating white bagging as per their contract with one of the three big pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)? If so, how does something like this happen with a large national company that has ERISA attorneys looking over the contracts with the PBMs?
 

Why is white bagging mandated?

Often, white bagging is mandated because the cost of infusions in a hospital outpatient facility can be very high. Nationally, it has been shown that hospitals charge four to five times the cost they paid for the drug, and the 100 most expensive hospitals charge 10-18 times the cost of their drugs. With these up-charges, white bagging could easily be a lower cost for employee and company. But across-the-board mandating of white bagging ignores that physician office–based infusions may offer a much lower cost to employees and the employer.

Another reason large and small self-funded companies may unknowingly sign contracts that are often more profitable to the PBM than to the employer is that the employer pharmacy benefit consultants are paid handsomely by the big PBMs and have been known to “rig” the contract in favor of the PBM, according to Paul Holmes, an ERISA attorney with a focus in pharmacy health plan contracts. Clearly, the PBM profits more with white-bagged medicines billed through the pharmacy (PBM) side of insurance as opposed to buy-and-bill medications that are billed on the medical side of insurance. So mandated white bagging is often included in these contracts, ignoring the lower cost in an infusion suite at a physician’s office.
 

Suggestions for employers

Employers and employees should be able to obtain the costs of mandated, white-bagged drugs from their PBMs because the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) mandates that group health plans ensure access to cost data. The employer should also have access to their consultant’s compensation from the PBM as Section 202 in the CAA states that employer benefit consultants must “disclose actual and anticipated cash and non-cash compensation they expect to earn in connection with the sale, renewal, and extension of group health insurance.”

It would be wise for all self-insured companies to use this section to see how much their consultants are being influenced by the company that they are recommending. Additionally, the companies should consider hiring ERISA attorneys that understand not only the legalese of the contract with a PBM but also the pharmacy lingo, such as the difference between maximum allowable cost, average wholesale price, average sales price, and average manufacturer’s price.
 

Suggestion for the rheumatologist

This leads to a suggestion to rheumatologists trying to get an exemption from mandated white bagging. If a patient has already had white-bagged medication, have them obtain a receipt from the PBM for their charges to the plan for the medication. If the patient has not gone through the white bagging yet, the PBM should be able to tell the plan the cost of the white-bagged medication and the cost to the patient. Compare those costs with what would be charged through buy and bill, and if it is less, present that evidence to the employer and remind them of their fiduciary responsibility to their employees.

Granted, this process may take more effort than filling out a prior authorization, but getting the white-bag exemption will help the patient, the employer, and the rheumatologist in the long run. A win-win-win!

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

When we talk about advocacy in rheumatology, we think about our patients and how we can help them gain access to the best care. Whether it’s filling out a prior authorization form or testifying before Congress, it is an action we perform that ultimately helps our patients achieve that care. We are familiar with many of the obstacles that block the path to the best care and interfere with our patient-doctor relationships. Much work has been done to pass legislation in the states to mitigate some of those obstacles, such as unreasonable step therapy regimens, nonmedical switching, and copay accumulators.

CSRO

Unfortunately, that state legislation does not cover patients who work for companies that are self-insured. Self-insured employers, which account for about 60% of America’s workers, directly pay for the health benefits offered to employees instead of buying “fully funded” insurance plans. Most of those self-funded plans fall under “ERISA” protections and are regulated by the federal Department of Labor. ERISA stands for Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law, which was enacted in 1974, also covers employee health plans. These plans must act as a fiduciary, meaning they must look after the well-being of the employees, including their finances and those of the plan itself.

The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) has learned of a number of issues involving patients who work for self-funded companies, regulated by ERISA. One such issue is that of mandated “white bagging.” White bagging has been discussed in “Rheum for Action” in the past. There is a long list of white-bagging problems, including dosing issues, lack of “chain of custody” with the medications, delays in treatment, mandatory up-front payments by the patient, and wastage of unused medication. However, there is another issue that is of concern not only to the employees (our patients) but to the employer as well.

Employers’ fiduciary responsibility

As mentioned earlier, the employers who self insure are responsible for the financial well-being of their employee and the plan itself. Therefore, if certain practices are mandated within the health plan that harm our patients or the plan financially, the company could be in violation of their fiduciary duty. Rheumatologists have said that buying and billing the drug to the medical side of the health plan in many cases costs much less than white bagging. Conceivably, that could result in breach of an employer’s fiduciary duty to their employee.

Evidence for violating fiduciary duty

CSRO recently received redacted receipts comparing costs between the two models of drug acquisition for a patient in an ERISA plan. White bagging for the patient occurred in 2021, and in 2022 an exemption was granted for the rheumatologist to buy and bill the administered medication. Unfortunately, the exemption to buy and bill in 2023 was denied and continues to be denied (as of this writing). A comparison of the receipts revealed the company was charged over $40,000 for the white-bagged medication in 2021, and the patient’s cost share for that year was $525. Under the traditional buy-and-bill acquisition model in 2022, the company was charged around $12,000 for the medication and the patient’s cost share was $30. There is a clear difference in cost to the employee and plan between the two acquisition models.

Is this major company unknowingly violating its fiduciary duty by mandating white bagging as per their contract with one of the three big pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)? If so, how does something like this happen with a large national company that has ERISA attorneys looking over the contracts with the PBMs?
 

Why is white bagging mandated?

Often, white bagging is mandated because the cost of infusions in a hospital outpatient facility can be very high. Nationally, it has been shown that hospitals charge four to five times the cost they paid for the drug, and the 100 most expensive hospitals charge 10-18 times the cost of their drugs. With these up-charges, white bagging could easily be a lower cost for employee and company. But across-the-board mandating of white bagging ignores that physician office–based infusions may offer a much lower cost to employees and the employer.

Another reason large and small self-funded companies may unknowingly sign contracts that are often more profitable to the PBM than to the employer is that the employer pharmacy benefit consultants are paid handsomely by the big PBMs and have been known to “rig” the contract in favor of the PBM, according to Paul Holmes, an ERISA attorney with a focus in pharmacy health plan contracts. Clearly, the PBM profits more with white-bagged medicines billed through the pharmacy (PBM) side of insurance as opposed to buy-and-bill medications that are billed on the medical side of insurance. So mandated white bagging is often included in these contracts, ignoring the lower cost in an infusion suite at a physician’s office.
 

Suggestions for employers

Employers and employees should be able to obtain the costs of mandated, white-bagged drugs from their PBMs because the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) mandates that group health plans ensure access to cost data. The employer should also have access to their consultant’s compensation from the PBM as Section 202 in the CAA states that employer benefit consultants must “disclose actual and anticipated cash and non-cash compensation they expect to earn in connection with the sale, renewal, and extension of group health insurance.”

It would be wise for all self-insured companies to use this section to see how much their consultants are being influenced by the company that they are recommending. Additionally, the companies should consider hiring ERISA attorneys that understand not only the legalese of the contract with a PBM but also the pharmacy lingo, such as the difference between maximum allowable cost, average wholesale price, average sales price, and average manufacturer’s price.
 

Suggestion for the rheumatologist

This leads to a suggestion to rheumatologists trying to get an exemption from mandated white bagging. If a patient has already had white-bagged medication, have them obtain a receipt from the PBM for their charges to the plan for the medication. If the patient has not gone through the white bagging yet, the PBM should be able to tell the plan the cost of the white-bagged medication and the cost to the patient. Compare those costs with what would be charged through buy and bill, and if it is less, present that evidence to the employer and remind them of their fiduciary responsibility to their employees.

Granted, this process may take more effort than filling out a prior authorization, but getting the white-bag exemption will help the patient, the employer, and the rheumatologist in the long run. A win-win-win!

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].

When we talk about advocacy in rheumatology, we think about our patients and how we can help them gain access to the best care. Whether it’s filling out a prior authorization form or testifying before Congress, it is an action we perform that ultimately helps our patients achieve that care. We are familiar with many of the obstacles that block the path to the best care and interfere with our patient-doctor relationships. Much work has been done to pass legislation in the states to mitigate some of those obstacles, such as unreasonable step therapy regimens, nonmedical switching, and copay accumulators.

CSRO

Unfortunately, that state legislation does not cover patients who work for companies that are self-insured. Self-insured employers, which account for about 60% of America’s workers, directly pay for the health benefits offered to employees instead of buying “fully funded” insurance plans. Most of those self-funded plans fall under “ERISA” protections and are regulated by the federal Department of Labor. ERISA stands for Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law, which was enacted in 1974, also covers employee health plans. These plans must act as a fiduciary, meaning they must look after the well-being of the employees, including their finances and those of the plan itself.

The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) has learned of a number of issues involving patients who work for self-funded companies, regulated by ERISA. One such issue is that of mandated “white bagging.” White bagging has been discussed in “Rheum for Action” in the past. There is a long list of white-bagging problems, including dosing issues, lack of “chain of custody” with the medications, delays in treatment, mandatory up-front payments by the patient, and wastage of unused medication. However, there is another issue that is of concern not only to the employees (our patients) but to the employer as well.

Employers’ fiduciary responsibility

As mentioned earlier, the employers who self insure are responsible for the financial well-being of their employee and the plan itself. Therefore, if certain practices are mandated within the health plan that harm our patients or the plan financially, the company could be in violation of their fiduciary duty. Rheumatologists have said that buying and billing the drug to the medical side of the health plan in many cases costs much less than white bagging. Conceivably, that could result in breach of an employer’s fiduciary duty to their employee.

Evidence for violating fiduciary duty

CSRO recently received redacted receipts comparing costs between the two models of drug acquisition for a patient in an ERISA plan. White bagging for the patient occurred in 2021, and in 2022 an exemption was granted for the rheumatologist to buy and bill the administered medication. Unfortunately, the exemption to buy and bill in 2023 was denied and continues to be denied (as of this writing). A comparison of the receipts revealed the company was charged over $40,000 for the white-bagged medication in 2021, and the patient’s cost share for that year was $525. Under the traditional buy-and-bill acquisition model in 2022, the company was charged around $12,000 for the medication and the patient’s cost share was $30. There is a clear difference in cost to the employee and plan between the two acquisition models.

Is this major company unknowingly violating its fiduciary duty by mandating white bagging as per their contract with one of the three big pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)? If so, how does something like this happen with a large national company that has ERISA attorneys looking over the contracts with the PBMs?
 

Why is white bagging mandated?

Often, white bagging is mandated because the cost of infusions in a hospital outpatient facility can be very high. Nationally, it has been shown that hospitals charge four to five times the cost they paid for the drug, and the 100 most expensive hospitals charge 10-18 times the cost of their drugs. With these up-charges, white bagging could easily be a lower cost for employee and company. But across-the-board mandating of white bagging ignores that physician office–based infusions may offer a much lower cost to employees and the employer.

Another reason large and small self-funded companies may unknowingly sign contracts that are often more profitable to the PBM than to the employer is that the employer pharmacy benefit consultants are paid handsomely by the big PBMs and have been known to “rig” the contract in favor of the PBM, according to Paul Holmes, an ERISA attorney with a focus in pharmacy health plan contracts. Clearly, the PBM profits more with white-bagged medicines billed through the pharmacy (PBM) side of insurance as opposed to buy-and-bill medications that are billed on the medical side of insurance. So mandated white bagging is often included in these contracts, ignoring the lower cost in an infusion suite at a physician’s office.
 

Suggestions for employers

Employers and employees should be able to obtain the costs of mandated, white-bagged drugs from their PBMs because the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) mandates that group health plans ensure access to cost data. The employer should also have access to their consultant’s compensation from the PBM as Section 202 in the CAA states that employer benefit consultants must “disclose actual and anticipated cash and non-cash compensation they expect to earn in connection with the sale, renewal, and extension of group health insurance.”

It would be wise for all self-insured companies to use this section to see how much their consultants are being influenced by the company that they are recommending. Additionally, the companies should consider hiring ERISA attorneys that understand not only the legalese of the contract with a PBM but also the pharmacy lingo, such as the difference between maximum allowable cost, average wholesale price, average sales price, and average manufacturer’s price.
 

Suggestion for the rheumatologist

This leads to a suggestion to rheumatologists trying to get an exemption from mandated white bagging. If a patient has already had white-bagged medication, have them obtain a receipt from the PBM for their charges to the plan for the medication. If the patient has not gone through the white bagging yet, the PBM should be able to tell the plan the cost of the white-bagged medication and the cost to the patient. Compare those costs with what would be charged through buy and bill, and if it is less, present that evidence to the employer and remind them of their fiduciary responsibility to their employees.

Granted, this process may take more effort than filling out a prior authorization, but getting the white-bag exemption will help the patient, the employer, and the rheumatologist in the long run. A win-win-win!

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].