Commentary

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. – Socrates

At what age is one supposed to be wise? I feel like I’m falling behind. I’ve crossed the middle of life and can check the prerequisite experiences: Joy, tragedy, love, adventure, love again. I lived a jetsetter life with an overnight bag always packed. I’ve sported the “Dad AF” tee with a fully loaded dad-pack. I’ve seen the 50 states and had my picture wrapped on a city bus (super-weird when you pull up next to one). Yet, when a moment arrives to pop in pithy advice for a resident or drop a few reassuring lines for a grieving friend, I’m often unable to find the words. If life were a video game, I’ve not earned the wisdom level yet.

Who are the wise men and women in your life? It’s difficult to list them. This is because it’s a complex attribute and hard to explain. It’s also because the wise who walk among us are rare. Wise is more than being brilliant at bullous diseases or knowing how to sleep train a baby. Nor is wise the buddy who purchased $1,000 of Bitcoin in 2010 (although stay close with him, he probably owns a jet). Neither content experts nor lucky friends rise to the appellation. To be wise you have to not only make good decisions, but also offer good advice. You need both knowledge and insight. Both experience and empathy.

Public domain/Wikimedia Commons

The ancients considered wisdom to be one of the vital virtues. It was personified in high-profile gods like Apollo and Athena. It’s rare and important enough to be seen as spiritual. It features heavily in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. In some cultures the wise are called elders or sages. In all cultures they are helpful, respected, sought after, appreciated. We need more wise people in this game of life. I want to be one. But there’s no Coursera for it.

To become wise you have to pass through many levels, put in a lot of reps, suffer through many sleepless nights. Like the third molar, also known as the wisdom tooth, it takes years. You also have to emerge stronger and smarter through those experiences. FDR would not have become one of the wisest presidents in history had it not been for his trials, and victories, over polio. Osler missed Cushing syndrome multiple times before he got it right. It seems you have to go to the mountain, like Batman, and fight a few battles to realize your full wisdom potential.

You must also reflect on your experiences and hone your insight. The management sage Peter Drucker would write what he expected to happen after a decision. Then he’d return to it to hone his intuition and judgment.

Lastly, you have to use your powers for good. Using insight to win your NCAA bracket pool isn’t wisdom. Helping a friend whose marriage is falling apart or colleague whose patient is suing them or a resident whose excision hit an arteriole surely is.

I’ve got a ways to go before anyone puts me on their wise friend list. I’m working on it though. Perhaps you will too – we are desperately short-staffed in this area. For now, I can start with writing better condolences.



“Who maintains that it is not a heavy blow? But it is part of being human.” – Seneca

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

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. – Socrates

At what age is one supposed to be wise? I feel like I’m falling behind. I’ve crossed the middle of life and can check the prerequisite experiences: Joy, tragedy, love, adventure, love again. I lived a jetsetter life with an overnight bag always packed. I’ve sported the “Dad AF” tee with a fully loaded dad-pack. I’ve seen the 50 states and had my picture wrapped on a city bus (super-weird when you pull up next to one). Yet, when a moment arrives to pop in pithy advice for a resident or drop a few reassuring lines for a grieving friend, I’m often unable to find the words. If life were a video game, I’ve not earned the wisdom level yet.

Who are the wise men and women in your life? It’s difficult to list them. This is because it’s a complex attribute and hard to explain. It’s also because the wise who walk among us are rare. Wise is more than being brilliant at bullous diseases or knowing how to sleep train a baby. Nor is wise the buddy who purchased $1,000 of Bitcoin in 2010 (although stay close with him, he probably owns a jet). Neither content experts nor lucky friends rise to the appellation. To be wise you have to not only make good decisions, but also offer good advice. You need both knowledge and insight. Both experience and empathy.

Public domain/Wikimedia Commons

The ancients considered wisdom to be one of the vital virtues. It was personified in high-profile gods like Apollo and Athena. It’s rare and important enough to be seen as spiritual. It features heavily in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. In some cultures the wise are called elders or sages. In all cultures they are helpful, respected, sought after, appreciated. We need more wise people in this game of life. I want to be one. But there’s no Coursera for it.

To become wise you have to pass through many levels, put in a lot of reps, suffer through many sleepless nights. Like the third molar, also known as the wisdom tooth, it takes years. You also have to emerge stronger and smarter through those experiences. FDR would not have become one of the wisest presidents in history had it not been for his trials, and victories, over polio. Osler missed Cushing syndrome multiple times before he got it right. It seems you have to go to the mountain, like Batman, and fight a few battles to realize your full wisdom potential.

You must also reflect on your experiences and hone your insight. The management sage Peter Drucker would write what he expected to happen after a decision. Then he’d return to it to hone his intuition and judgment.

Lastly, you have to use your powers for good. Using insight to win your NCAA bracket pool isn’t wisdom. Helping a friend whose marriage is falling apart or colleague whose patient is suing them or a resident whose excision hit an arteriole surely is.

I’ve got a ways to go before anyone puts me on their wise friend list. I’m working on it though. Perhaps you will too – we are desperately short-staffed in this area. For now, I can start with writing better condolences.



“Who maintains that it is not a heavy blow? But it is part of being human.” – Seneca

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

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. – Socrates

At what age is one supposed to be wise? I feel like I’m falling behind. I’ve crossed the middle of life and can check the prerequisite experiences: Joy, tragedy, love, adventure, love again. I lived a jetsetter life with an overnight bag always packed. I’ve sported the “Dad AF” tee with a fully loaded dad-pack. I’ve seen the 50 states and had my picture wrapped on a city bus (super-weird when you pull up next to one). Yet, when a moment arrives to pop in pithy advice for a resident or drop a few reassuring lines for a grieving friend, I’m often unable to find the words. If life were a video game, I’ve not earned the wisdom level yet.

Who are the wise men and women in your life? It’s difficult to list them. This is because it’s a complex attribute and hard to explain. It’s also because the wise who walk among us are rare. Wise is more than being brilliant at bullous diseases or knowing how to sleep train a baby. Nor is wise the buddy who purchased $1,000 of Bitcoin in 2010 (although stay close with him, he probably owns a jet). Neither content experts nor lucky friends rise to the appellation. To be wise you have to not only make good decisions, but also offer good advice. You need both knowledge and insight. Both experience and empathy.

Public domain/Wikimedia Commons

The ancients considered wisdom to be one of the vital virtues. It was personified in high-profile gods like Apollo and Athena. It’s rare and important enough to be seen as spiritual. It features heavily in the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. In some cultures the wise are called elders or sages. In all cultures they are helpful, respected, sought after, appreciated. We need more wise people in this game of life. I want to be one. But there’s no Coursera for it.

To become wise you have to pass through many levels, put in a lot of reps, suffer through many sleepless nights. Like the third molar, also known as the wisdom tooth, it takes years. You also have to emerge stronger and smarter through those experiences. FDR would not have become one of the wisest presidents in history had it not been for his trials, and victories, over polio. Osler missed Cushing syndrome multiple times before he got it right. It seems you have to go to the mountain, like Batman, and fight a few battles to realize your full wisdom potential.

You must also reflect on your experiences and hone your insight. The management sage Peter Drucker would write what he expected to happen after a decision. Then he’d return to it to hone his intuition and judgment.

Lastly, you have to use your powers for good. Using insight to win your NCAA bracket pool isn’t wisdom. Helping a friend whose marriage is falling apart or colleague whose patient is suing them or a resident whose excision hit an arteriole surely is.

I’ve got a ways to go before anyone puts me on their wise friend list. I’m working on it though. Perhaps you will too – we are desperately short-staffed in this area. For now, I can start with writing better condolences.



“Who maintains that it is not a heavy blow? But it is part of being human.” – Seneca

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

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency requiring timely evaluation and treatment. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk for life-threatening infection, and fever may be the only sign.^1,2 Unrecognized fever can progress to sepsis and may result in increased morbidity and mortality. FN is defined as the presence of fever with a single temperature of  ≥ 38.3 °C or a sustained temperature > 38 °C sustained over 1 hour with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of < 500 cells/mm³ or < 1000 cells/mm³ and expected to decrease to < 500 within 48 hours.^2,3 It is critical to quickly identify these patients on presentation to the emergency department (ED) and take appropriate steps to initiate treatment as soon as possible. To streamline care, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that laboratory assessments be initiated within 15 minutes of triage and empiric antibiotic therapy be administered within 1 hour.²

In alignment with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) highlights the importance of the initial assessment of fever and neutropenia and presents available treatment options for both inpatient and outpatient management of FN.¹ Once patients are identified, the appropriate laboratory tests and physical assessments should be initiated immediately. These tests include a complete blood count with differential, complete metabolic panel (CMP), and blood cultures from 2 separate IV sites.^1-3 The guidelines offer additional suggestions for cultures and radiographic assessments that may be completed based on clinical presentation.

Several available studies provide insight into methods of protocol creation and possible barriers to timely management. Previous research showed that an FN protocol for pediatric oncology patients aimed at antibiotic administration within 1 hour showed significant improvement from 35.0% to 55.4% of patients being treated on time.^3,4 Prescribers became more comfortable in using the protocol, and timing improved as the study progressed. Barriers noted were inconsistent ED triage, rotating ED staff, and limited understanding of the protocol.³ Yoshida and colleagues worked with the same population. Over the course of 1 year, 60% of patients were receiving antibiotics within 1 hour. The mean time decreased from 83 to 65 minutes, which the study investigators noted would continue to decrease with increased protocol comfort and use.⁵ Mattison and colleagues used nursing staff to identify patients with FN and begin antibiotic treatment. On triage, nurses took note of a temperature of > 38 °C or a sepsislike clinical picture that initiated their antibiotic proforma.^4,6 This resulted in 48.1% of patients receiving antibiotics within 15 minutes and 63.3% overall within 30 minutes of arrival.⁵ Other barriers to consider are ED crowding and the admission of higher acuity patients, which may delay the treatment of patients with FN.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana is a level 1A facility serving about 62,000 veterans annually and more than 13,000 unique veterans visiting the ED. RLRVAMC ED staff rotate often so the creation of a process will facilitate appropriate treatment as quickly as possible. The purpose of this protocol was to improve the mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics for patients with FN presenting to the ED.

Implementation

To quantify the perceived delay in antibiotic prescribing, a pre- and postprotocol retrospective chart review of patients who presented with FN to the RLRVAMC ED was conducted. Patients were identified through the electronic health record (EHR) based on 3 criteria: recorded/reported fever as defined above, ANC < 1000 cells/mm³, and administration of cancer treatment (IV and oral) within 4 weeks. The data collected in the postimplementation phase were identical to the pre-implementation phase. This included timing of blood cultures, choice/appropriateness of antibiotics based on guidelines, and length of admission. The pre-implementation period started on August 1, 2018, and ended on August 1, 2019, to allow for an adequate pre-implementation sample size. The protocol was then implemented on October 1, 2019, and data collection for the postimplementation phase began on October 1, 2019, and ended on October 1, 2020.

The protocol was accompanied by EHR order sets initiated by both nurses and health care practitioners (HCPs), including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The nursing order set consisted of vitals and appropriate laboratory monitoring, and the practitioner order set housed medication orders and additional clinical monitoring for more patient-specific scenarios. On identification of at-risk patients, the nursing staff could initiate the neutropenic fever protocol without consulting an HCP. The patient was then assigned a higher acuity rank, and the HCP was tasked with seeing the patient immediately. In conjunction with a complete physical assessment, the HCP ordered appropriate antibiotics through the designated order set to streamline antibiotic selection. Antibiotic options included cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin when clinically indicated. Alternatives for patients allergic to penicillin also were available. The protocol intended to streamline workup and antibiotic selection but was not designed as a substitute for solid clinical decision making and complete assessment on behalf of the HCP; therefore, additional workup may have been necessary and documented in the EHR.

Findings

This patient population comprised 17 patients pre-implementation and 12 patients postimplementation, most of whom had solid tumor malignancies (88.2% and 83.3%, respectively) receiving platinum, taxane, or antimetabolite-based chemotherapy. In the pre-implementation group, most patients (70.5%) coming through the ED were treated with palliative intent. Only 25% of these received any prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) based on risk for FN. The mean time from triage to the first dose of antibiotics decreased from 3.3 hours before protocol implementation to 2.3 hours after. Only 6% in the pre-implementation group compared with 17% in the postimplementation group received the first dose of antibiotics within the recommended 1-hour interval from triage. The most common antibiotics administered were cefepime and vancomycin. Eleven patients in each group (65% and 92%, respectively) were admitted to the inpatient service for further care, with 10 and 8 patients, respectively, experiencing a hospitalization > 72 hours. Of note, 41% of patients died pre-implementation vs 17% postimplementation.

Interpretation

The goal of this protocol was to optimize ED care of patients presenting with FN to better align with guideline-recommended time lines and antibiotics. The mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics decreased by 1.0 hour from the pre- to postimplementation phase, similar to the study by Mattison and colleagues.³ When removing an outlier from the postimplementation group, the mean time from triage to first dose further decreased to 1.8 hours. The percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage nearly tripled from 6% to 17%. Additionally, the percentage of patients empirically treated with appropriate antibiotics consistent with NCCN/ASCO/IDSA guidelines increased from 65% to 83%. Although goals for the optimization of care have not yet been reached, this protocol is the first step in the right direction.

Limitations

Several limitations and concerns arise when implementing a new protocol or workflow process. Overall, these limitations may contribute to delays, such as the willingness of team members to use an unfamiliar protocol or issues locating a new protocol. The nursing staff is challenged to triage patients quickly, which may add to an already busy environment. Frequent physician turnover may require more frequent education sessions. Also, a lag time between implementation and using the protocol may result in decreased protocol use during the designated postimplementation data collection phase.

On review, ED staff were excited to find a protocol that streamlined decision making and increased awareness for patients at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic may have been a confounder for the postimplementation phase. Data may have been skewed as some patients might have elected to stay at home to avoid potential COVID-19 exposure in the ED. Additionally, increased ED use by patients with COVID-19 may have resulted in longer wait times for an available bed, thereby minimizing the impact of the protocol on time from triage to administration of antibiotics. COVID-19 may also have contributed to postimplementation mortality. Of note, barcode medication administration (BCMA) was implemented in the ED in May 2019, which may account for undocumented delays in antibiotic administration as staff may have been unfamiliar with BCMA workflow.

Due to the retrospective nature of a chart review, the data rely on the timely input and accuracy of documented information. Data after the patient’s ED encounter (except inpatient hospitalization and deaths during the implementation period) were not collected due to the scope of the program being limited to the ED only. Last, this protocol was implemented at a single site, and the generalizability to implement the same protocol at other VA medical centers may be limited. After reaching out to other VA sites and several non-VA facilities, we were unable to find a site with a similar protocol or program emphasizing the importance of timely care, although there may have been established laboratory test and medication order sets within the EHR.

Future Direction

The newly established FN order sets will continue to streamline clinical decision making and antibiotic selection in this population. In our study, we learned that most patients coming through the ED were being treated with palliative intent. As a result, these patients also may have a higher risk for complications like FN. We hope to further analyze the impact on this group and consider the role of empiric dose reduction or increased G-CSF support to minimize FN.

More than half of the patients who were admitted to the inpatient service, remained in extended care for > 72 hours. Inpatient recovery time may cause delays in future cancer treatment cycles, dose reductions, and contribute to an overall decline in performance status. Six patients in the pre-implementation phase and 1 in the postimplementation phase were eligible for outpatient management per independent Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer assessment. To increase comfort, a future goal would be to create an outpatient treatment order set on discharge from the ED to help identify and outline treatment options for low-risk patients. In addition to the ED, training staff in clinics with a similar protocol may enhance the identification of patients with FN. This may require a tailored protocol for this location using health technicians in taking vital signs before the HCP visit.

This protocol helped establish “code sepsis.” Code sepsis alerts are broadcast to alert pertinent members of the health care team to provide immediate medical attention to the veteran. Pharmacy can expedite the compounding of antibiotics and record review while radiology prioritizes the portable X-ray for quick and efficient imaging. The nursing team comes ready to administer antibiotics once cultures are drawn. The HCP's attention is focused on the physical examination to determine any additional steps/care that need to be accomplished. At our site, we plan to continue HCP, nursing, and other team member education on this oncologic emergency and the availability of a streamlined protocol. We would like to re-assess the data with a long team study now that the protocol has been in place for 3 years. We hope to continue to provide strong patient care with enhanced adherence to guidelines for patients with FN presenting to RLRVAMC.

Conclusions

Early identification and timely empiric antibiotic therapy are critical to improving outcomes for patients presenting to the ED with FN. The neutropenic fever protocol reduced time to antibiotics by about 1 hour with a higher percentage of patients receiving them in < 1 hour. Additional optimization of the order sets along with increased protocol comfort and staff education will help further reduce the time to antibiotic administration in alignment with guideline recommendations.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency requiring timely evaluation and treatment. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk for life-threatening infection, and fever may be the only sign.^1,2 Unrecognized fever can progress to sepsis and may result in increased morbidity and mortality. FN is defined as the presence of fever with a single temperature of  ≥ 38.3 °C or a sustained temperature > 38 °C sustained over 1 hour with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of < 500 cells/mm³ or < 1000 cells/mm³ and expected to decrease to < 500 within 48 hours.^2,3 It is critical to quickly identify these patients on presentation to the emergency department (ED) and take appropriate steps to initiate treatment as soon as possible. To streamline care, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that laboratory assessments be initiated within 15 minutes of triage and empiric antibiotic therapy be administered within 1 hour.²

In alignment with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) highlights the importance of the initial assessment of fever and neutropenia and presents available treatment options for both inpatient and outpatient management of FN.¹ Once patients are identified, the appropriate laboratory tests and physical assessments should be initiated immediately. These tests include a complete blood count with differential, complete metabolic panel (CMP), and blood cultures from 2 separate IV sites.^1-3 The guidelines offer additional suggestions for cultures and radiographic assessments that may be completed based on clinical presentation.

Several available studies provide insight into methods of protocol creation and possible barriers to timely management. Previous research showed that an FN protocol for pediatric oncology patients aimed at antibiotic administration within 1 hour showed significant improvement from 35.0% to 55.4% of patients being treated on time.^3,4 Prescribers became more comfortable in using the protocol, and timing improved as the study progressed. Barriers noted were inconsistent ED triage, rotating ED staff, and limited understanding of the protocol.³ Yoshida and colleagues worked with the same population. Over the course of 1 year, 60% of patients were receiving antibiotics within 1 hour. The mean time decreased from 83 to 65 minutes, which the study investigators noted would continue to decrease with increased protocol comfort and use.⁵ Mattison and colleagues used nursing staff to identify patients with FN and begin antibiotic treatment. On triage, nurses took note of a temperature of > 38 °C or a sepsislike clinical picture that initiated their antibiotic proforma.^4,6 This resulted in 48.1% of patients receiving antibiotics within 15 minutes and 63.3% overall within 30 minutes of arrival.⁵ Other barriers to consider are ED crowding and the admission of higher acuity patients, which may delay the treatment of patients with FN.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana is a level 1A facility serving about 62,000 veterans annually and more than 13,000 unique veterans visiting the ED. RLRVAMC ED staff rotate often so the creation of a process will facilitate appropriate treatment as quickly as possible. The purpose of this protocol was to improve the mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics for patients with FN presenting to the ED.

Implementation

To quantify the perceived delay in antibiotic prescribing, a pre- and postprotocol retrospective chart review of patients who presented with FN to the RLRVAMC ED was conducted. Patients were identified through the electronic health record (EHR) based on 3 criteria: recorded/reported fever as defined above, ANC < 1000 cells/mm³, and administration of cancer treatment (IV and oral) within 4 weeks. The data collected in the postimplementation phase were identical to the pre-implementation phase. This included timing of blood cultures, choice/appropriateness of antibiotics based on guidelines, and length of admission. The pre-implementation period started on August 1, 2018, and ended on August 1, 2019, to allow for an adequate pre-implementation sample size. The protocol was then implemented on October 1, 2019, and data collection for the postimplementation phase began on October 1, 2019, and ended on October 1, 2020.

The protocol was accompanied by EHR order sets initiated by both nurses and health care practitioners (HCPs), including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The nursing order set consisted of vitals and appropriate laboratory monitoring, and the practitioner order set housed medication orders and additional clinical monitoring for more patient-specific scenarios. On identification of at-risk patients, the nursing staff could initiate the neutropenic fever protocol without consulting an HCP. The patient was then assigned a higher acuity rank, and the HCP was tasked with seeing the patient immediately. In conjunction with a complete physical assessment, the HCP ordered appropriate antibiotics through the designated order set to streamline antibiotic selection. Antibiotic options included cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin when clinically indicated. Alternatives for patients allergic to penicillin also were available. The protocol intended to streamline workup and antibiotic selection but was not designed as a substitute for solid clinical decision making and complete assessment on behalf of the HCP; therefore, additional workup may have been necessary and documented in the EHR.

Findings

This patient population comprised 17 patients pre-implementation and 12 patients postimplementation, most of whom had solid tumor malignancies (88.2% and 83.3%, respectively) receiving platinum, taxane, or antimetabolite-based chemotherapy. In the pre-implementation group, most patients (70.5%) coming through the ED were treated with palliative intent. Only 25% of these received any prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) based on risk for FN. The mean time from triage to the first dose of antibiotics decreased from 3.3 hours before protocol implementation to 2.3 hours after. Only 6% in the pre-implementation group compared with 17% in the postimplementation group received the first dose of antibiotics within the recommended 1-hour interval from triage. The most common antibiotics administered were cefepime and vancomycin. Eleven patients in each group (65% and 92%, respectively) were admitted to the inpatient service for further care, with 10 and 8 patients, respectively, experiencing a hospitalization > 72 hours. Of note, 41% of patients died pre-implementation vs 17% postimplementation.

Interpretation

The goal of this protocol was to optimize ED care of patients presenting with FN to better align with guideline-recommended time lines and antibiotics. The mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics decreased by 1.0 hour from the pre- to postimplementation phase, similar to the study by Mattison and colleagues.³ When removing an outlier from the postimplementation group, the mean time from triage to first dose further decreased to 1.8 hours. The percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage nearly tripled from 6% to 17%. Additionally, the percentage of patients empirically treated with appropriate antibiotics consistent with NCCN/ASCO/IDSA guidelines increased from 65% to 83%. Although goals for the optimization of care have not yet been reached, this protocol is the first step in the right direction.

Limitations

Several limitations and concerns arise when implementing a new protocol or workflow process. Overall, these limitations may contribute to delays, such as the willingness of team members to use an unfamiliar protocol or issues locating a new protocol. The nursing staff is challenged to triage patients quickly, which may add to an already busy environment. Frequent physician turnover may require more frequent education sessions. Also, a lag time between implementation and using the protocol may result in decreased protocol use during the designated postimplementation data collection phase.

On review, ED staff were excited to find a protocol that streamlined decision making and increased awareness for patients at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic may have been a confounder for the postimplementation phase. Data may have been skewed as some patients might have elected to stay at home to avoid potential COVID-19 exposure in the ED. Additionally, increased ED use by patients with COVID-19 may have resulted in longer wait times for an available bed, thereby minimizing the impact of the protocol on time from triage to administration of antibiotics. COVID-19 may also have contributed to postimplementation mortality. Of note, barcode medication administration (BCMA) was implemented in the ED in May 2019, which may account for undocumented delays in antibiotic administration as staff may have been unfamiliar with BCMA workflow.

Due to the retrospective nature of a chart review, the data rely on the timely input and accuracy of documented information. Data after the patient’s ED encounter (except inpatient hospitalization and deaths during the implementation period) were not collected due to the scope of the program being limited to the ED only. Last, this protocol was implemented at a single site, and the generalizability to implement the same protocol at other VA medical centers may be limited. After reaching out to other VA sites and several non-VA facilities, we were unable to find a site with a similar protocol or program emphasizing the importance of timely care, although there may have been established laboratory test and medication order sets within the EHR.

Future Direction

The newly established FN order sets will continue to streamline clinical decision making and antibiotic selection in this population. In our study, we learned that most patients coming through the ED were being treated with palliative intent. As a result, these patients also may have a higher risk for complications like FN. We hope to further analyze the impact on this group and consider the role of empiric dose reduction or increased G-CSF support to minimize FN.

More than half of the patients who were admitted to the inpatient service, remained in extended care for > 72 hours. Inpatient recovery time may cause delays in future cancer treatment cycles, dose reductions, and contribute to an overall decline in performance status. Six patients in the pre-implementation phase and 1 in the postimplementation phase were eligible for outpatient management per independent Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer assessment. To increase comfort, a future goal would be to create an outpatient treatment order set on discharge from the ED to help identify and outline treatment options for low-risk patients. In addition to the ED, training staff in clinics with a similar protocol may enhance the identification of patients with FN. This may require a tailored protocol for this location using health technicians in taking vital signs before the HCP visit.

This protocol helped establish “code sepsis.” Code sepsis alerts are broadcast to alert pertinent members of the health care team to provide immediate medical attention to the veteran. Pharmacy can expedite the compounding of antibiotics and record review while radiology prioritizes the portable X-ray for quick and efficient imaging. The nursing team comes ready to administer antibiotics once cultures are drawn. The HCP's attention is focused on the physical examination to determine any additional steps/care that need to be accomplished. At our site, we plan to continue HCP, nursing, and other team member education on this oncologic emergency and the availability of a streamlined protocol. We would like to re-assess the data with a long team study now that the protocol has been in place for 3 years. We hope to continue to provide strong patient care with enhanced adherence to guidelines for patients with FN presenting to RLRVAMC.

Conclusions

Early identification and timely empiric antibiotic therapy are critical to improving outcomes for patients presenting to the ED with FN. The neutropenic fever protocol reduced time to antibiotics by about 1 hour with a higher percentage of patients receiving them in < 1 hour. Additional optimization of the order sets along with increased protocol comfort and staff education will help further reduce the time to antibiotic administration in alignment with guideline recommendations.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency requiring timely evaluation and treatment. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk for life-threatening infection, and fever may be the only sign.^1,2 Unrecognized fever can progress to sepsis and may result in increased morbidity and mortality. FN is defined as the presence of fever with a single temperature of  ≥ 38.3 °C or a sustained temperature > 38 °C sustained over 1 hour with an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of < 500 cells/mm³ or < 1000 cells/mm³ and expected to decrease to < 500 within 48 hours.^2,3 It is critical to quickly identify these patients on presentation to the emergency department (ED) and take appropriate steps to initiate treatment as soon as possible. To streamline care, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that laboratory assessments be initiated within 15 minutes of triage and empiric antibiotic therapy be administered within 1 hour.²

In alignment with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) highlights the importance of the initial assessment of fever and neutropenia and presents available treatment options for both inpatient and outpatient management of FN.¹ Once patients are identified, the appropriate laboratory tests and physical assessments should be initiated immediately. These tests include a complete blood count with differential, complete metabolic panel (CMP), and blood cultures from 2 separate IV sites.^1-3 The guidelines offer additional suggestions for cultures and radiographic assessments that may be completed based on clinical presentation.

Several available studies provide insight into methods of protocol creation and possible barriers to timely management. Previous research showed that an FN protocol for pediatric oncology patients aimed at antibiotic administration within 1 hour showed significant improvement from 35.0% to 55.4% of patients being treated on time.^3,4 Prescribers became more comfortable in using the protocol, and timing improved as the study progressed. Barriers noted were inconsistent ED triage, rotating ED staff, and limited understanding of the protocol.³ Yoshida and colleagues worked with the same population. Over the course of 1 year, 60% of patients were receiving antibiotics within 1 hour. The mean time decreased from 83 to 65 minutes, which the study investigators noted would continue to decrease with increased protocol comfort and use.⁵ Mattison and colleagues used nursing staff to identify patients with FN and begin antibiotic treatment. On triage, nurses took note of a temperature of > 38 °C or a sepsislike clinical picture that initiated their antibiotic proforma.^4,6 This resulted in 48.1% of patients receiving antibiotics within 15 minutes and 63.3% overall within 30 minutes of arrival.⁵ Other barriers to consider are ED crowding and the admission of higher acuity patients, which may delay the treatment of patients with FN.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana is a level 1A facility serving about 62,000 veterans annually and more than 13,000 unique veterans visiting the ED. RLRVAMC ED staff rotate often so the creation of a process will facilitate appropriate treatment as quickly as possible. The purpose of this protocol was to improve the mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics for patients with FN presenting to the ED.

Implementation

To quantify the perceived delay in antibiotic prescribing, a pre- and postprotocol retrospective chart review of patients who presented with FN to the RLRVAMC ED was conducted. Patients were identified through the electronic health record (EHR) based on 3 criteria: recorded/reported fever as defined above, ANC < 1000 cells/mm³, and administration of cancer treatment (IV and oral) within 4 weeks. The data collected in the postimplementation phase were identical to the pre-implementation phase. This included timing of blood cultures, choice/appropriateness of antibiotics based on guidelines, and length of admission. The pre-implementation period started on August 1, 2018, and ended on August 1, 2019, to allow for an adequate pre-implementation sample size. The protocol was then implemented on October 1, 2019, and data collection for the postimplementation phase began on October 1, 2019, and ended on October 1, 2020.

The protocol was accompanied by EHR order sets initiated by both nurses and health care practitioners (HCPs), including physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The nursing order set consisted of vitals and appropriate laboratory monitoring, and the practitioner order set housed medication orders and additional clinical monitoring for more patient-specific scenarios. On identification of at-risk patients, the nursing staff could initiate the neutropenic fever protocol without consulting an HCP. The patient was then assigned a higher acuity rank, and the HCP was tasked with seeing the patient immediately. In conjunction with a complete physical assessment, the HCP ordered appropriate antibiotics through the designated order set to streamline antibiotic selection. Antibiotic options included cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin when clinically indicated. Alternatives for patients allergic to penicillin also were available. The protocol intended to streamline workup and antibiotic selection but was not designed as a substitute for solid clinical decision making and complete assessment on behalf of the HCP; therefore, additional workup may have been necessary and documented in the EHR.

Findings

This patient population comprised 17 patients pre-implementation and 12 patients postimplementation, most of whom had solid tumor malignancies (88.2% and 83.3%, respectively) receiving platinum, taxane, or antimetabolite-based chemotherapy. In the pre-implementation group, most patients (70.5%) coming through the ED were treated with palliative intent. Only 25% of these received any prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) based on risk for FN. The mean time from triage to the first dose of antibiotics decreased from 3.3 hours before protocol implementation to 2.3 hours after. Only 6% in the pre-implementation group compared with 17% in the postimplementation group received the first dose of antibiotics within the recommended 1-hour interval from triage. The most common antibiotics administered were cefepime and vancomycin. Eleven patients in each group (65% and 92%, respectively) were admitted to the inpatient service for further care, with 10 and 8 patients, respectively, experiencing a hospitalization > 72 hours. Of note, 41% of patients died pre-implementation vs 17% postimplementation.

Interpretation

The goal of this protocol was to optimize ED care of patients presenting with FN to better align with guideline-recommended time lines and antibiotics. The mean time from triage to administration of antibiotics decreased by 1.0 hour from the pre- to postimplementation phase, similar to the study by Mattison and colleagues.³ When removing an outlier from the postimplementation group, the mean time from triage to first dose further decreased to 1.8 hours. The percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage nearly tripled from 6% to 17%. Additionally, the percentage of patients empirically treated with appropriate antibiotics consistent with NCCN/ASCO/IDSA guidelines increased from 65% to 83%. Although goals for the optimization of care have not yet been reached, this protocol is the first step in the right direction.

Limitations

Several limitations and concerns arise when implementing a new protocol or workflow process. Overall, these limitations may contribute to delays, such as the willingness of team members to use an unfamiliar protocol or issues locating a new protocol. The nursing staff is challenged to triage patients quickly, which may add to an already busy environment. Frequent physician turnover may require more frequent education sessions. Also, a lag time between implementation and using the protocol may result in decreased protocol use during the designated postimplementation data collection phase.

On review, ED staff were excited to find a protocol that streamlined decision making and increased awareness for patients at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic may have been a confounder for the postimplementation phase. Data may have been skewed as some patients might have elected to stay at home to avoid potential COVID-19 exposure in the ED. Additionally, increased ED use by patients with COVID-19 may have resulted in longer wait times for an available bed, thereby minimizing the impact of the protocol on time from triage to administration of antibiotics. COVID-19 may also have contributed to postimplementation mortality. Of note, barcode medication administration (BCMA) was implemented in the ED in May 2019, which may account for undocumented delays in antibiotic administration as staff may have been unfamiliar with BCMA workflow.

Due to the retrospective nature of a chart review, the data rely on the timely input and accuracy of documented information. Data after the patient’s ED encounter (except inpatient hospitalization and deaths during the implementation period) were not collected due to the scope of the program being limited to the ED only. Last, this protocol was implemented at a single site, and the generalizability to implement the same protocol at other VA medical centers may be limited. After reaching out to other VA sites and several non-VA facilities, we were unable to find a site with a similar protocol or program emphasizing the importance of timely care, although there may have been established laboratory test and medication order sets within the EHR.

Future Direction

The newly established FN order sets will continue to streamline clinical decision making and antibiotic selection in this population. In our study, we learned that most patients coming through the ED were being treated with palliative intent. As a result, these patients also may have a higher risk for complications like FN. We hope to further analyze the impact on this group and consider the role of empiric dose reduction or increased G-CSF support to minimize FN.

More than half of the patients who were admitted to the inpatient service, remained in extended care for > 72 hours. Inpatient recovery time may cause delays in future cancer treatment cycles, dose reductions, and contribute to an overall decline in performance status. Six patients in the pre-implementation phase and 1 in the postimplementation phase were eligible for outpatient management per independent Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer assessment. To increase comfort, a future goal would be to create an outpatient treatment order set on discharge from the ED to help identify and outline treatment options for low-risk patients. In addition to the ED, training staff in clinics with a similar protocol may enhance the identification of patients with FN. This may require a tailored protocol for this location using health technicians in taking vital signs before the HCP visit.

This protocol helped establish “code sepsis.” Code sepsis alerts are broadcast to alert pertinent members of the health care team to provide immediate medical attention to the veteran. Pharmacy can expedite the compounding of antibiotics and record review while radiology prioritizes the portable X-ray for quick and efficient imaging. The nursing team comes ready to administer antibiotics once cultures are drawn. The HCP's attention is focused on the physical examination to determine any additional steps/care that need to be accomplished. At our site, we plan to continue HCP, nursing, and other team member education on this oncologic emergency and the availability of a streamlined protocol. We would like to re-assess the data with a long team study now that the protocol has been in place for 3 years. We hope to continue to provide strong patient care with enhanced adherence to guidelines for patients with FN presenting to RLRVAMC.

Conclusions

Early identification and timely empiric antibiotic therapy are critical to improving outcomes for patients presenting to the ED with FN. The neutropenic fever protocol reduced time to antibiotics by about 1 hour with a higher percentage of patients receiving them in < 1 hour. Additional optimization of the order sets along with increased protocol comfort and staff education will help further reduce the time to antibiotic administration in alignment with guideline recommendations.

As a psychiatrist and a writer, I know I should be worried about the possibility that I could be replaced by a bot. Like most physicians, I face the daily challenge of how to manage the paperwork of clinical practice, so I wondered if ChatGPT, the latest craze in artificial intelligence (AI), could write my progress notes.

ChatGPT is an advanced language generation model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep-learning techniques to generate humanlike responses to text inputs. I wondered whether ChatGPT could help me with my paperwork and progress notes by automatically generating text. Could it be trained to fill out progress notes based on information I provided? Free up my time? Reduce the risk for transcription errors?

Putting aside concerns about my job security for the moment, I signed up for an account. But first, I needed to play. I asked ChatGPT to write a love poem that would incorporate all the members of my family. This was a hit.

Next, I requested poems about specific pets. Because I spent the first year of the pandemic writing daily limericks and sending them to a distribution list, I knew people wouldn’t be surprised when I sent sonnets for their cats; but this time I let ChatGPT do the writing.

Then, for my colleagues in the Maryland Psychiatric Society, I requested a poem about the distressing nationwide shortage of stimulants. ChatGPT created clever stanzas. I was amused, but I’m not sure if anyone else was. This medication shortage is a touchy subject for psychiatrists and their patients who depend on these medications, so perhaps it wasn’t the right topic for bot-humor, and I should stick to cats.

At last, I was ready to put ChatGPT to the test and asked it to write a progress note that would contain the elements necessary to bill for a routine office visit with an add-on psychotherapy code. I created a few facts about a fictional patient and pressed enter.

The result was disappointing, ChatGPT responded with a standard note that did not take into account the items necessary to meet current coding standards. Maybe it was my fault; ChatGPT might need more information, but in the time it would take to provide more data, I could write my own progress note! I tried again and this time, ChatGPT defined the billing codes for me, but this wasn’t what I needed.

I decided to explore whether ChatGPT can, in fact, replace me. Feeling a bit queasy, I asked my new AI friend and was told that it could not replace a psychiatrist.

“Are you sure?” I asked again. “Yes, I am sure. ChatGPT is an AI language model trained to answer questions and provide information, but it is not capable of providing personalized medical advice or treatment.”

At least one of us felt certain. Continuing the conversation, I told the bot that I was anxious about my job security and requested advice. I wish I could tell you that ChatGPT was a dud, but instead, it had reasonable suggestions that were upbeat and hopeful.

“It’s understandable to feel anxious and worried about job security in today’s rapidly changing job market,” ChatGPT responded. “Here are some steps you can take to manage your feelings:”

Seek support: Talk to a trusted friend, family member, or mental health professional.

Educate yourself: Stay informed about industry trends and advancements in AI and technology to understand the potential impact on your job.

Upskill: Consider taking online courses or pursuing additional education to stay relevant in the workforce.

Find purpose: Focus on your strengths, interests, and passions outside of work to cultivate a sense of fulfillment.

Take care of yourself: Engage in self-care activities such as exercise, meditation, and hobbies to manage stress and maintain good mental health.

“Remember,” ChatGPT concluded, “it’s important to address your feelings and take proactive steps to manage them. You can come out of this situation with a clearer mind, new skills, and opportunities for growth.”

ChatGPT sounds a lot like me! However, when I asked ChatGPT about prescribing, I finally received reassurance that I am not completely obsolete: “I’m sorry,” the bot said, “but I am an AI language model and do not have the ability to write prescriptions or provide medical advice.” Still, I couldn’t help but think that the bot’s day would eventually come. 

Because ChatGPT is my coauthor for this essay, I asked it to write the ending. We suddenly have a whole new world, and I’m along for the ride. Yet after all that reassurance, it seems that ChatGPT does indeed want my job. It summarized our conversation and left me unsure of whether to laugh or to cry:  

“There you have it, folks – ChatGPT, the digital psychiatrist that’s here to listen to all your problems, 24/7, for free! No more waiting for appointments, no more copays, just type away and let the artificial intelligence take over.

“But hey, who needs a human shrink when you’ve got ChatGPT, right? Just don’t be surprised if your ‘therapy sessions’ end up feeling more like a conversation with a sarcastic AI friend than serious mental health treatment.”

In conclusion, ChatGPT and I hope this article has provided some insight into the strange and hilarious world of AI-powered psychiatry. Who knows, maybe one day ChatGPT will become a licensed therapist and start prescribing real medication. But until then, just sit back, relax, and let the machine do the talking.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

As a psychiatrist and a writer, I know I should be worried about the possibility that I could be replaced by a bot. Like most physicians, I face the daily challenge of how to manage the paperwork of clinical practice, so I wondered if ChatGPT, the latest craze in artificial intelligence (AI), could write my progress notes.

ChatGPT is an advanced language generation model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep-learning techniques to generate humanlike responses to text inputs. I wondered whether ChatGPT could help me with my paperwork and progress notes by automatically generating text. Could it be trained to fill out progress notes based on information I provided? Free up my time? Reduce the risk for transcription errors?

Putting aside concerns about my job security for the moment, I signed up for an account. But first, I needed to play. I asked ChatGPT to write a love poem that would incorporate all the members of my family. This was a hit.

Next, I requested poems about specific pets. Because I spent the first year of the pandemic writing daily limericks and sending them to a distribution list, I knew people wouldn’t be surprised when I sent sonnets for their cats; but this time I let ChatGPT do the writing.

Then, for my colleagues in the Maryland Psychiatric Society, I requested a poem about the distressing nationwide shortage of stimulants. ChatGPT created clever stanzas. I was amused, but I’m not sure if anyone else was. This medication shortage is a touchy subject for psychiatrists and their patients who depend on these medications, so perhaps it wasn’t the right topic for bot-humor, and I should stick to cats.

At last, I was ready to put ChatGPT to the test and asked it to write a progress note that would contain the elements necessary to bill for a routine office visit with an add-on psychotherapy code. I created a few facts about a fictional patient and pressed enter.

The result was disappointing, ChatGPT responded with a standard note that did not take into account the items necessary to meet current coding standards. Maybe it was my fault; ChatGPT might need more information, but in the time it would take to provide more data, I could write my own progress note! I tried again and this time, ChatGPT defined the billing codes for me, but this wasn’t what I needed.

I decided to explore whether ChatGPT can, in fact, replace me. Feeling a bit queasy, I asked my new AI friend and was told that it could not replace a psychiatrist.

“Are you sure?” I asked again. “Yes, I am sure. ChatGPT is an AI language model trained to answer questions and provide information, but it is not capable of providing personalized medical advice or treatment.”

At least one of us felt certain. Continuing the conversation, I told the bot that I was anxious about my job security and requested advice. I wish I could tell you that ChatGPT was a dud, but instead, it had reasonable suggestions that were upbeat and hopeful.

“It’s understandable to feel anxious and worried about job security in today’s rapidly changing job market,” ChatGPT responded. “Here are some steps you can take to manage your feelings:”

Seek support: Talk to a trusted friend, family member, or mental health professional.

Educate yourself: Stay informed about industry trends and advancements in AI and technology to understand the potential impact on your job.

Upskill: Consider taking online courses or pursuing additional education to stay relevant in the workforce.

Find purpose: Focus on your strengths, interests, and passions outside of work to cultivate a sense of fulfillment.

Take care of yourself: Engage in self-care activities such as exercise, meditation, and hobbies to manage stress and maintain good mental health.

“Remember,” ChatGPT concluded, “it’s important to address your feelings and take proactive steps to manage them. You can come out of this situation with a clearer mind, new skills, and opportunities for growth.”

ChatGPT sounds a lot like me! However, when I asked ChatGPT about prescribing, I finally received reassurance that I am not completely obsolete: “I’m sorry,” the bot said, “but I am an AI language model and do not have the ability to write prescriptions or provide medical advice.” Still, I couldn’t help but think that the bot’s day would eventually come. 

Because ChatGPT is my coauthor for this essay, I asked it to write the ending. We suddenly have a whole new world, and I’m along for the ride. Yet after all that reassurance, it seems that ChatGPT does indeed want my job. It summarized our conversation and left me unsure of whether to laugh or to cry:  

“There you have it, folks – ChatGPT, the digital psychiatrist that’s here to listen to all your problems, 24/7, for free! No more waiting for appointments, no more copays, just type away and let the artificial intelligence take over.

“But hey, who needs a human shrink when you’ve got ChatGPT, right? Just don’t be surprised if your ‘therapy sessions’ end up feeling more like a conversation with a sarcastic AI friend than serious mental health treatment.”

In conclusion, ChatGPT and I hope this article has provided some insight into the strange and hilarious world of AI-powered psychiatry. Who knows, maybe one day ChatGPT will become a licensed therapist and start prescribing real medication. But until then, just sit back, relax, and let the machine do the talking.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

As a psychiatrist and a writer, I know I should be worried about the possibility that I could be replaced by a bot. Like most physicians, I face the daily challenge of how to manage the paperwork of clinical practice, so I wondered if ChatGPT, the latest craze in artificial intelligence (AI), could write my progress notes.

ChatGPT is an advanced language generation model developed by OpenAI. It uses deep-learning techniques to generate humanlike responses to text inputs. I wondered whether ChatGPT could help me with my paperwork and progress notes by automatically generating text. Could it be trained to fill out progress notes based on information I provided? Free up my time? Reduce the risk for transcription errors?

Putting aside concerns about my job security for the moment, I signed up for an account. But first, I needed to play. I asked ChatGPT to write a love poem that would incorporate all the members of my family. This was a hit.

Next, I requested poems about specific pets. Because I spent the first year of the pandemic writing daily limericks and sending them to a distribution list, I knew people wouldn’t be surprised when I sent sonnets for their cats; but this time I let ChatGPT do the writing.

Then, for my colleagues in the Maryland Psychiatric Society, I requested a poem about the distressing nationwide shortage of stimulants. ChatGPT created clever stanzas. I was amused, but I’m not sure if anyone else was. This medication shortage is a touchy subject for psychiatrists and their patients who depend on these medications, so perhaps it wasn’t the right topic for bot-humor, and I should stick to cats.

At last, I was ready to put ChatGPT to the test and asked it to write a progress note that would contain the elements necessary to bill for a routine office visit with an add-on psychotherapy code. I created a few facts about a fictional patient and pressed enter.

The result was disappointing, ChatGPT responded with a standard note that did not take into account the items necessary to meet current coding standards. Maybe it was my fault; ChatGPT might need more information, but in the time it would take to provide more data, I could write my own progress note! I tried again and this time, ChatGPT defined the billing codes for me, but this wasn’t what I needed.

I decided to explore whether ChatGPT can, in fact, replace me. Feeling a bit queasy, I asked my new AI friend and was told that it could not replace a psychiatrist.

“Are you sure?” I asked again. “Yes, I am sure. ChatGPT is an AI language model trained to answer questions and provide information, but it is not capable of providing personalized medical advice or treatment.”

At least one of us felt certain. Continuing the conversation, I told the bot that I was anxious about my job security and requested advice. I wish I could tell you that ChatGPT was a dud, but instead, it had reasonable suggestions that were upbeat and hopeful.

“It’s understandable to feel anxious and worried about job security in today’s rapidly changing job market,” ChatGPT responded. “Here are some steps you can take to manage your feelings:”

Seek support: Talk to a trusted friend, family member, or mental health professional.

Educate yourself: Stay informed about industry trends and advancements in AI and technology to understand the potential impact on your job.

Upskill: Consider taking online courses or pursuing additional education to stay relevant in the workforce.

Find purpose: Focus on your strengths, interests, and passions outside of work to cultivate a sense of fulfillment.

Take care of yourself: Engage in self-care activities such as exercise, meditation, and hobbies to manage stress and maintain good mental health.

“Remember,” ChatGPT concluded, “it’s important to address your feelings and take proactive steps to manage them. You can come out of this situation with a clearer mind, new skills, and opportunities for growth.”

ChatGPT sounds a lot like me! However, when I asked ChatGPT about prescribing, I finally received reassurance that I am not completely obsolete: “I’m sorry,” the bot said, “but I am an AI language model and do not have the ability to write prescriptions or provide medical advice.” Still, I couldn’t help but think that the bot’s day would eventually come. 

Because ChatGPT is my coauthor for this essay, I asked it to write the ending. We suddenly have a whole new world, and I’m along for the ride. Yet after all that reassurance, it seems that ChatGPT does indeed want my job. It summarized our conversation and left me unsure of whether to laugh or to cry:  

“There you have it, folks – ChatGPT, the digital psychiatrist that’s here to listen to all your problems, 24/7, for free! No more waiting for appointments, no more copays, just type away and let the artificial intelligence take over.

“But hey, who needs a human shrink when you’ve got ChatGPT, right? Just don’t be surprised if your ‘therapy sessions’ end up feeling more like a conversation with a sarcastic AI friend than serious mental health treatment.”

In conclusion, ChatGPT and I hope this article has provided some insight into the strange and hilarious world of AI-powered psychiatry. Who knows, maybe one day ChatGPT will become a licensed therapist and start prescribing real medication. But until then, just sit back, relax, and let the machine do the talking.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

If you are reading this, you probably know what a PBM is or at least know what the acronym stands for (pharmacy benefit manager). But don’t be surprised if many people, even physicians, still have never heard the term or don’t know (or really care) what it stands for. This past weekend, I saw how important even a little bit of education on this seemingly boring topic can create passionate advocates in less than an hour.

CSRO

On March 10, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had its Fellows Conference on real-life topics such as evaluating a contract, malpractice troubleshooting, getting out of debt and creating wealth, and learning about the latest coding issues, among others. We had a record-breaking number of fellows in attendance this year. I gave a presentation on formulary construction (list of drugs that insurance will cover), what tools are used to keep the formulary profitable, and what are the potential consequences for patients with the use of these tools, such as step therapy and nonmedical switching. Remember that if you have a condition requiring an expensive drug that is not covered on the formulary, you will not have access to it unless it is given to you for free by some type of assistance program, or you happen to be very wealthy.

It was the first time I gave this talk at our Fellows Conference, and I realized fairly quickly that a decent proportion of the audience did not know what PBM stood for, much less the power that PBMs have in setting up the list of expensive drugs that they will pay for. I wasn’t so surprised by how little they knew about the particulars of this topic – for example, that lower-priced medications are often shunned by PBMs because they are not as profitable for the PBM as higher-priced drugs. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at the number of fellows who came to me after my talk with almost as much passion as I have for this topic. Many asked how they could get involved and what they could do right now to support advocacy for their patients. It all seemed to fall in place for them as they began telling me stories of the problems they had in getting medications for their patients – adults and kids alike.

The “meme” on the street is that drug pricing, patient access, and the drug supply channel is “much too complex” for the non-economist to understand. That was not the case at the Fellows Conference. It started off with me moving back and forth across the stage explaining how the system is run by entities whose fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not our patients. I explained the fierce competition, the bidding process, the “rebate equation,” and many stories of egregious policies and behaviors by an oligopoly of health insurers and their powerful PBMs. I repeated over and over that “If you make an expensive drug that is not on the formulary, no one will take to your drug, unless you give it away for free.”

It became clear to the room that the competition among expensive drug makers to get preferred status on the formulary is fierce. I explained how to win that coveted spot on the formulary by legally kicking back the most money, in the form of rebates and fees, to the PBM. Unfortunately, these rebates and fees are generally a percentage of the list price, so often it is the highest-priced drug that wins the coveted spot. I explained that patients get no benefit from the money kicked back to the PBM, and in fact, because their coinsurance is often based on the list price of the drug, patients’ cost share will go up when PBMs pick the drug with the highest price. I gave the example of a major PBM placing a $10,000 brand-name drug on the formulary and excluding the $400 generic version of the same drug. I told them that PBMs call these the “lowest cost” drugs – for them. This made them angry. I also explained to the fellows that these kickbacks are legal because PBMs have “safe harbor” from the antikickback statute. And yes, that made them even angrier. The more I spoke about the harm done to patients both physically and monetarily by utilization management tools such as step therapy and nonmedical switching, the angrier and more passionate they became.

What started as a room full of fellows wondering whether they really were interested in a talk about PBMs and formulary construction turned, in less than an hour, into a room filled with passion and fury: Rheumatology fellows ready to go and fight for their patients. It’s not as complicated as everyone wants you to believe. In that short time, fellows who had walked into that conference hall, not knowing what to expect from me, walked out with a new attitude and passion, hungry for the next step they could take to advocate for their patients. My slogan on Twitter has always been that I will continue to educate and advocate as long as my passion stays ahead of my cynicism. My passion certainly got a boost as I watched the fellows in the conference hall turn into “Rheums for Action” before my eyes.

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].

If you are reading this, you probably know what a PBM is or at least know what the acronym stands for (pharmacy benefit manager). But don’t be surprised if many people, even physicians, still have never heard the term or don’t know (or really care) what it stands for. This past weekend, I saw how important even a little bit of education on this seemingly boring topic can create passionate advocates in less than an hour.

CSRO

On March 10, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had its Fellows Conference on real-life topics such as evaluating a contract, malpractice troubleshooting, getting out of debt and creating wealth, and learning about the latest coding issues, among others. We had a record-breaking number of fellows in attendance this year. I gave a presentation on formulary construction (list of drugs that insurance will cover), what tools are used to keep the formulary profitable, and what are the potential consequences for patients with the use of these tools, such as step therapy and nonmedical switching. Remember that if you have a condition requiring an expensive drug that is not covered on the formulary, you will not have access to it unless it is given to you for free by some type of assistance program, or you happen to be very wealthy.

It was the first time I gave this talk at our Fellows Conference, and I realized fairly quickly that a decent proportion of the audience did not know what PBM stood for, much less the power that PBMs have in setting up the list of expensive drugs that they will pay for. I wasn’t so surprised by how little they knew about the particulars of this topic – for example, that lower-priced medications are often shunned by PBMs because they are not as profitable for the PBM as higher-priced drugs. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at the number of fellows who came to me after my talk with almost as much passion as I have for this topic. Many asked how they could get involved and what they could do right now to support advocacy for their patients. It all seemed to fall in place for them as they began telling me stories of the problems they had in getting medications for their patients – adults and kids alike.

The “meme” on the street is that drug pricing, patient access, and the drug supply channel is “much too complex” for the non-economist to understand. That was not the case at the Fellows Conference. It started off with me moving back and forth across the stage explaining how the system is run by entities whose fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not our patients. I explained the fierce competition, the bidding process, the “rebate equation,” and many stories of egregious policies and behaviors by an oligopoly of health insurers and their powerful PBMs. I repeated over and over that “If you make an expensive drug that is not on the formulary, no one will take to your drug, unless you give it away for free.”

It became clear to the room that the competition among expensive drug makers to get preferred status on the formulary is fierce. I explained how to win that coveted spot on the formulary by legally kicking back the most money, in the form of rebates and fees, to the PBM. Unfortunately, these rebates and fees are generally a percentage of the list price, so often it is the highest-priced drug that wins the coveted spot. I explained that patients get no benefit from the money kicked back to the PBM, and in fact, because their coinsurance is often based on the list price of the drug, patients’ cost share will go up when PBMs pick the drug with the highest price. I gave the example of a major PBM placing a $10,000 brand-name drug on the formulary and excluding the $400 generic version of the same drug. I told them that PBMs call these the “lowest cost” drugs – for them. This made them angry. I also explained to the fellows that these kickbacks are legal because PBMs have “safe harbor” from the antikickback statute. And yes, that made them even angrier. The more I spoke about the harm done to patients both physically and monetarily by utilization management tools such as step therapy and nonmedical switching, the angrier and more passionate they became.

What started as a room full of fellows wondering whether they really were interested in a talk about PBMs and formulary construction turned, in less than an hour, into a room filled with passion and fury: Rheumatology fellows ready to go and fight for their patients. It’s not as complicated as everyone wants you to believe. In that short time, fellows who had walked into that conference hall, not knowing what to expect from me, walked out with a new attitude and passion, hungry for the next step they could take to advocate for their patients. My slogan on Twitter has always been that I will continue to educate and advocate as long as my passion stays ahead of my cynicism. My passion certainly got a boost as I watched the fellows in the conference hall turn into “Rheums for Action” before my eyes.

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].

If you are reading this, you probably know what a PBM is or at least know what the acronym stands for (pharmacy benefit manager). But don’t be surprised if many people, even physicians, still have never heard the term or don’t know (or really care) what it stands for. This past weekend, I saw how important even a little bit of education on this seemingly boring topic can create passionate advocates in less than an hour.

CSRO

On March 10, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had its Fellows Conference on real-life topics such as evaluating a contract, malpractice troubleshooting, getting out of debt and creating wealth, and learning about the latest coding issues, among others. We had a record-breaking number of fellows in attendance this year. I gave a presentation on formulary construction (list of drugs that insurance will cover), what tools are used to keep the formulary profitable, and what are the potential consequences for patients with the use of these tools, such as step therapy and nonmedical switching. Remember that if you have a condition requiring an expensive drug that is not covered on the formulary, you will not have access to it unless it is given to you for free by some type of assistance program, or you happen to be very wealthy.

It was the first time I gave this talk at our Fellows Conference, and I realized fairly quickly that a decent proportion of the audience did not know what PBM stood for, much less the power that PBMs have in setting up the list of expensive drugs that they will pay for. I wasn’t so surprised by how little they knew about the particulars of this topic – for example, that lower-priced medications are often shunned by PBMs because they are not as profitable for the PBM as higher-priced drugs. However, I was very pleasantly surprised at the number of fellows who came to me after my talk with almost as much passion as I have for this topic. Many asked how they could get involved and what they could do right now to support advocacy for their patients. It all seemed to fall in place for them as they began telling me stories of the problems they had in getting medications for their patients – adults and kids alike.

The “meme” on the street is that drug pricing, patient access, and the drug supply channel is “much too complex” for the non-economist to understand. That was not the case at the Fellows Conference. It started off with me moving back and forth across the stage explaining how the system is run by entities whose fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, not our patients. I explained the fierce competition, the bidding process, the “rebate equation,” and many stories of egregious policies and behaviors by an oligopoly of health insurers and their powerful PBMs. I repeated over and over that “If you make an expensive drug that is not on the formulary, no one will take to your drug, unless you give it away for free.”

It became clear to the room that the competition among expensive drug makers to get preferred status on the formulary is fierce. I explained how to win that coveted spot on the formulary by legally kicking back the most money, in the form of rebates and fees, to the PBM. Unfortunately, these rebates and fees are generally a percentage of the list price, so often it is the highest-priced drug that wins the coveted spot. I explained that patients get no benefit from the money kicked back to the PBM, and in fact, because their coinsurance is often based on the list price of the drug, patients’ cost share will go up when PBMs pick the drug with the highest price. I gave the example of a major PBM placing a $10,000 brand-name drug on the formulary and excluding the $400 generic version of the same drug. I told them that PBMs call these the “lowest cost” drugs – for them. This made them angry. I also explained to the fellows that these kickbacks are legal because PBMs have “safe harbor” from the antikickback statute. And yes, that made them even angrier. The more I spoke about the harm done to patients both physically and monetarily by utilization management tools such as step therapy and nonmedical switching, the angrier and more passionate they became.

What started as a room full of fellows wondering whether they really were interested in a talk about PBMs and formulary construction turned, in less than an hour, into a room filled with passion and fury: Rheumatology fellows ready to go and fight for their patients. It’s not as complicated as everyone wants you to believe. In that short time, fellows who had walked into that conference hall, not knowing what to expect from me, walked out with a new attitude and passion, hungry for the next step they could take to advocate for their patients. My slogan on Twitter has always been that I will continue to educate and advocate as long as my passion stays ahead of my cynicism. My passion certainly got a boost as I watched the fellows in the conference hall turn into “Rheums for Action” before my eyes.

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].

With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.

Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”

Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
 

Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity

We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.

Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.

The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.

The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.

In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.

The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
 

Why the concern about thyroid cancer?

Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.

Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.

Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.

Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.

Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.

Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.

An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.

While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.

No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.

Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
 

How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages

The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.

It’s prudent to advise patients that if they have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, in particular, they should avoid using this class of medication. Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.

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

With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.

Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”

Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
 

Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity

We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.

Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.

The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.

The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.

In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.

The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
 

Why the concern about thyroid cancer?

Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.

Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.

Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.

Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.

Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.

Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.

An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.

While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.

No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.

Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
 

How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages

The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.

It’s prudent to advise patients that if they have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, in particular, they should avoid using this class of medication. Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.

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

With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.

Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”

Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
 

Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity

We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.

Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.

The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.

The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.

In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.

The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
 

Why the concern about thyroid cancer?

Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.

Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.

Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.

Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.

Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.

And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.

Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.

An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.

While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.

No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.

Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
 

How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages

The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.

It’s prudent to advise patients that if they have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, in particular, they should avoid using this class of medication. Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, discussing a recent meeting of practitioners of thoracic oncology in the metropolitan New York City area. I’ll focus on some important topics related to decision-making and daily practice, and the practitioners’ thoughts from the meeting.

There’s no doubt that our outcomes are better for patients, but it’s much harder to make the best choice and I think there’s more pressure on us to make the best choice.

Topic one was the need for next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing. I’ll put it before you that every patient needs NGS testing at the time of diagnosis. It really shouldn’t be put off. How to do that is a topic for another day, but you need NGS testing.

Moving along with this, even when you’re thinking you’re going to go down the road of a checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy, the recent Food and Drug Administration approval for cemiplimab and chemotherapy says that you have to make sure that patients don’t have EGFR or ALK aberrations. Now, for cemiplimab, you have to make sure they don’t have ROS1 aberrations.

You need NGS testing to find those targets and give patients a targeted therapy. Even if you want to give a checkpoint inhibitor with or without chemotherapy, you need to have NGS testing.

Second, the way to get the most comprehensive analysis of targets for which there are therapeutic avenues is to do more comprehensive NGS testing, including both DNA and RNA. Not all the panels do this right now, and you really need that RNA-based testing to find all the fusions that are druggable by the current medications that we have.

Bottom line: NGS testing should be done for everybody, and you need to do the most comprehensive panel available both for DNA and RNA.

The next topic that there was great agreement on was the emergence of antibody-drug conjugates. I think everybody’s excited. All of them have shown evidence of benefit. There are varying degrees of side effects, and we’ll learn how to deal with those. They’re new drugs, they’re here, and they’re safe.

There are a couple of things to consider, though. Number one, these drugs do have chemotherapy and they have side effects from chemotherapy. I think the consensus is that when you treat patients with an antibody-drug conjugate, you need to give antiemetic regimens, at least for trastuzumab and the other deruxtecan drugs. You need to give a regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy as prophylactic antiemetics. I think that was a consensus thought.

Second, these drugs are making us rethink what it means to have the expression of the protein. I’m totally struck that for trastuzumab deruxtecan, patritumab deruxtecan, and datopotamab deruxtecan, the degree of protein expression is not particularly relevant, and these drugs can work in all patients. There have been cases clearly shown that datopotamab deruxtecan and patritumab deruxtecan both have benefit in patients with EGFR mutations after progression on osimertinib.

This idea of a need for overexpression, and maybe even the idea of testing, is being challenged now. These drugs seem to work as long as some protein is present. They don’t work in every patient, but they work in the vast majority. This thinking about overexpression with the antibody-drug conjugates is probably going to need to be reevaluated.

Last are some thoughts about our targeted therapies. Again, we have more targets. We have EGFR exon 20, for example, and more drugs for MET. I’d like to share a couple of thoughts on what the experts presented at the meeting.

First, although we have a bunch of new targeted agents for patients with EGFR-mutant cancers, probably the thing that’s going to change therapy now is adding chemotherapy to these agents. We may also use circulating tumor (ctDNA) to help guide us to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from a chemotherapy with osimertinib. I see that as a trend and as a strategy that we’re likely to see move forward.

Another is in the ALK space. I know we’ve gotten very comfortable giving alectinib and brigatinib, but when you look at all the data, it points to lorlatinib perhaps being a better first-line therapy.

I think the experts thought lorlatinib would be a good drug. Yes, it has a different spectrum of side effects. The central nervous system (CNS) side effects are something we have to learn how to take care of; however, we can do that. Generally, with dose reduction, those side effects are manageable.

If you can get better outcomes in general and in patients with brain metastases, it may make some sense to displace our go-to first-line drugs, brigatinib and alectinib, with lorlatinib.

Changes in practice are happening now. There are drugs available. I urge oncologists to be open to rethinking what your standard of care is and also open to rethinking how these drugs work and to go with the data that we have.

We’re doing much better now, but the best is yet to come.
 

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, discussing a recent meeting of practitioners of thoracic oncology in the metropolitan New York City area. I’ll focus on some important topics related to decision-making and daily practice, and the practitioners’ thoughts from the meeting.

There’s no doubt that our outcomes are better for patients, but it’s much harder to make the best choice and I think there’s more pressure on us to make the best choice.

Topic one was the need for next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing. I’ll put it before you that every patient needs NGS testing at the time of diagnosis. It really shouldn’t be put off. How to do that is a topic for another day, but you need NGS testing.

Moving along with this, even when you’re thinking you’re going to go down the road of a checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy, the recent Food and Drug Administration approval for cemiplimab and chemotherapy says that you have to make sure that patients don’t have EGFR or ALK aberrations. Now, for cemiplimab, you have to make sure they don’t have ROS1 aberrations.

You need NGS testing to find those targets and give patients a targeted therapy. Even if you want to give a checkpoint inhibitor with or without chemotherapy, you need to have NGS testing.

Second, the way to get the most comprehensive analysis of targets for which there are therapeutic avenues is to do more comprehensive NGS testing, including both DNA and RNA. Not all the panels do this right now, and you really need that RNA-based testing to find all the fusions that are druggable by the current medications that we have.

Bottom line: NGS testing should be done for everybody, and you need to do the most comprehensive panel available both for DNA and RNA.

The next topic that there was great agreement on was the emergence of antibody-drug conjugates. I think everybody’s excited. All of them have shown evidence of benefit. There are varying degrees of side effects, and we’ll learn how to deal with those. They’re new drugs, they’re here, and they’re safe.

There are a couple of things to consider, though. Number one, these drugs do have chemotherapy and they have side effects from chemotherapy. I think the consensus is that when you treat patients with an antibody-drug conjugate, you need to give antiemetic regimens, at least for trastuzumab and the other deruxtecan drugs. You need to give a regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy as prophylactic antiemetics. I think that was a consensus thought.

Second, these drugs are making us rethink what it means to have the expression of the protein. I’m totally struck that for trastuzumab deruxtecan, patritumab deruxtecan, and datopotamab deruxtecan, the degree of protein expression is not particularly relevant, and these drugs can work in all patients. There have been cases clearly shown that datopotamab deruxtecan and patritumab deruxtecan both have benefit in patients with EGFR mutations after progression on osimertinib.

This idea of a need for overexpression, and maybe even the idea of testing, is being challenged now. These drugs seem to work as long as some protein is present. They don’t work in every patient, but they work in the vast majority. This thinking about overexpression with the antibody-drug conjugates is probably going to need to be reevaluated.

Last are some thoughts about our targeted therapies. Again, we have more targets. We have EGFR exon 20, for example, and more drugs for MET. I’d like to share a couple of thoughts on what the experts presented at the meeting.

First, although we have a bunch of new targeted agents for patients with EGFR-mutant cancers, probably the thing that’s going to change therapy now is adding chemotherapy to these agents. We may also use circulating tumor (ctDNA) to help guide us to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from a chemotherapy with osimertinib. I see that as a trend and as a strategy that we’re likely to see move forward.

Another is in the ALK space. I know we’ve gotten very comfortable giving alectinib and brigatinib, but when you look at all the data, it points to lorlatinib perhaps being a better first-line therapy.

I think the experts thought lorlatinib would be a good drug. Yes, it has a different spectrum of side effects. The central nervous system (CNS) side effects are something we have to learn how to take care of; however, we can do that. Generally, with dose reduction, those side effects are manageable.

If you can get better outcomes in general and in patients with brain metastases, it may make some sense to displace our go-to first-line drugs, brigatinib and alectinib, with lorlatinib.

Changes in practice are happening now. There are drugs available. I urge oncologists to be open to rethinking what your standard of care is and also open to rethinking how these drugs work and to go with the data that we have.

We’re doing much better now, but the best is yet to come.
 

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan Kettering, discussing a recent meeting of practitioners of thoracic oncology in the metropolitan New York City area. I’ll focus on some important topics related to decision-making and daily practice, and the practitioners’ thoughts from the meeting.

There’s no doubt that our outcomes are better for patients, but it’s much harder to make the best choice and I think there’s more pressure on us to make the best choice.

Topic one was the need for next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing. I’ll put it before you that every patient needs NGS testing at the time of diagnosis. It really shouldn’t be put off. How to do that is a topic for another day, but you need NGS testing.

Moving along with this, even when you’re thinking you’re going to go down the road of a checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy, the recent Food and Drug Administration approval for cemiplimab and chemotherapy says that you have to make sure that patients don’t have EGFR or ALK aberrations. Now, for cemiplimab, you have to make sure they don’t have ROS1 aberrations.

You need NGS testing to find those targets and give patients a targeted therapy. Even if you want to give a checkpoint inhibitor with or without chemotherapy, you need to have NGS testing.

Second, the way to get the most comprehensive analysis of targets for which there are therapeutic avenues is to do more comprehensive NGS testing, including both DNA and RNA. Not all the panels do this right now, and you really need that RNA-based testing to find all the fusions that are druggable by the current medications that we have.

Bottom line: NGS testing should be done for everybody, and you need to do the most comprehensive panel available both for DNA and RNA.

The next topic that there was great agreement on was the emergence of antibody-drug conjugates. I think everybody’s excited. All of them have shown evidence of benefit. There are varying degrees of side effects, and we’ll learn how to deal with those. They’re new drugs, they’re here, and they’re safe.

There are a couple of things to consider, though. Number one, these drugs do have chemotherapy and they have side effects from chemotherapy. I think the consensus is that when you treat patients with an antibody-drug conjugate, you need to give antiemetic regimens, at least for trastuzumab and the other deruxtecan drugs. You need to give a regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy as prophylactic antiemetics. I think that was a consensus thought.

Second, these drugs are making us rethink what it means to have the expression of the protein. I’m totally struck that for trastuzumab deruxtecan, patritumab deruxtecan, and datopotamab deruxtecan, the degree of protein expression is not particularly relevant, and these drugs can work in all patients. There have been cases clearly shown that datopotamab deruxtecan and patritumab deruxtecan both have benefit in patients with EGFR mutations after progression on osimertinib.

This idea of a need for overexpression, and maybe even the idea of testing, is being challenged now. These drugs seem to work as long as some protein is present. They don’t work in every patient, but they work in the vast majority. This thinking about overexpression with the antibody-drug conjugates is probably going to need to be reevaluated.

Last are some thoughts about our targeted therapies. Again, we have more targets. We have EGFR exon 20, for example, and more drugs for MET. I’d like to share a couple of thoughts on what the experts presented at the meeting.

First, although we have a bunch of new targeted agents for patients with EGFR-mutant cancers, probably the thing that’s going to change therapy now is adding chemotherapy to these agents. We may also use circulating tumor (ctDNA) to help guide us to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from a chemotherapy with osimertinib. I see that as a trend and as a strategy that we’re likely to see move forward.

Another is in the ALK space. I know we’ve gotten very comfortable giving alectinib and brigatinib, but when you look at all the data, it points to lorlatinib perhaps being a better first-line therapy.

I think the experts thought lorlatinib would be a good drug. Yes, it has a different spectrum of side effects. The central nervous system (CNS) side effects are something we have to learn how to take care of; however, we can do that. Generally, with dose reduction, those side effects are manageable.

If you can get better outcomes in general and in patients with brain metastases, it may make some sense to displace our go-to first-line drugs, brigatinib and alectinib, with lorlatinib.

Changes in practice are happening now. There are drugs available. I urge oncologists to be open to rethinking what your standard of care is and also open to rethinking how these drugs work and to go with the data that we have.

We’re doing much better now, but the best is yet to come.
 

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

A study of three separate nationally representative samples of nearly 9,000 U.S. military veterans found psychological well-being – defined in terms of having a high sense of purpose, social connectedness, and happiness – to be significantly diminished among veteran suicide attempt survivors relative to nonattempters, even decades after their last attempt.¹

Bradley Brown

Despite the trend toward diminished well-being, many veterans who survived a suicide attempt reported average to optimal levels of well-being. Specifically, 52%-60% of veterans reporting a prior suicide attempt also reported experiencing as much purpose, social connection, and happiness as veterans without a suicide attempt history. Remarkably, a small subset (2-7%) of veteran attempt survivors even reported higher levels of well-being than veterans without a suicide attempt history.

Thus, while a prior suicide attempt was associated with reduced well-being on average, many veterans who survived a suicide attempt can and do go on to live enriching lives.

These data are notable because, in 2021, approximately 1.4 million U.S. adults made a nonfatal suicide attempt. Historically, suicide research has understandably emphasized the study of risk factors that increase the likelihood that someone dies by suicide. Given that a prior suicide attempt is among the top risk factors for suicide, virtually all research on suicide attempt survivors has focused on their elevated risk for future suicidality. Yet, 9 out of 10 people who have made a nonfatal suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. It is thus critical to investigate the quality of life of the millions of suicide attempt survivors.

To date, we know little about a question keenly important to suicide attempt survivors and their loved ones: What is the possibility of rebuilding a meaningful, high-quality life after a suicide attempt?

In addition to reporting on the prevalence of high levels of psychological well-being after a nonfatal suicide attempt, it is pivotal to investigate factors that may help facilitate this outcome. To that end, we identified personal characteristics associated with high levels of well-being. Notably, it was malleable psychological strengths such as optimism and a curious mindset, more than the mere absence of symptoms, that were linked to higher levels of well-being among veteran suicide attempt survivors.

Current suicide prevention interventions and treatments, which often focus on mitigating immediate suicide risk by treating symptoms, may be overlooking the importance of cultivating and building psychological strengths that may help promote greater well-being and enriched lives. Moreover, treatments that emphasize such strengths might be particularly fruitful in mitigating suicide risk in veterans, as veterans may be more receptive to prevention and treatment initiatives that embrace the cultivation and bolstering of strengths that are inherent in military culture and values, such as resilience and perseverance in the face of life challenges.²

One notable caveat to this study is that the data were cross-sectional, meaning they were collected at a single time point. As such, the authors cannot conclude that factors such as curiosity necessarily caused higher levels of well-being in veterans, as opposed to well-being causing higher levels of curiosity.

Similarly, while one can infer that psychological well-being was near-absent at the time of a suicide attempt, well-being of attempt survivors was not assessed before their attempt. Longitudinal studies that follow attempt survivors over time are needed to understand how well-being changes over time for suicide attempt survivors and the causal chain in what predicts that change.

Nevertheless, the results of this large, multicohort study serve as an important first step toward a more comprehensive view of prognosis after a suicide attempt. Just as the process that leads to a suicide attempt is complex, so too is the process of recovery after an attempt. While this study provides sound estimates of well-being outcomes and some possible candidates that might facilitate these outcomes, a critical next step for future research is to replicate and extend these findings. To do so, it is pivotal to extend the assessment scope beyond symptom-based measures and include measures of well-being.

Additionally, the investment in resources into longer-term examinations following suicide attempts is essential to understand different pathways toward achieving greater well-being. Providing hope is vital and potentially lifesaving, as one of the most common experiences reported before a suicide attempt is an unremitting sense of hopelessness. Continued research on well-being has the potential to impart a more balanced, nuanced prognosis after a suicide attempt that challenges perceptions of an invariably bleak prospect of recovery after suicidality.

Collectively, these results highlight the importance of broadening the scope of how the mental health field views and treats psychiatric difficulties to include a greater focus on recovery-based outcomes and personal strengths that help facilitate recovery from adverse life experiences such as suicide attempts.

People desire lives that they enjoy and find meaningful, and having a history of suicide attempts does not preclude the prospect of such a life. It is time that suicide research reflects the vast landscape of potential outcomes after a suicide attempt that goes beyond the prediction of future suicide risk.

Mr. Brown is a doctoral student of clinical psychology at the University of South Florida, Tampa. Dr. Rottenberg is director of the Mood and Emotion Lab and area director of the department of clinical psychology, University of South Florida.

References

1. Brown BA et al. Psychological well-being in US veterans with non-fatal suicide attempts: A multi-cohort population-based study. J Affect Disord. 2022 Oct 1;314:34-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.07.003.

2. Bryan CJ et al. Understanding and preventing military suicide. Arch Suicide Res. 2012;16(2):95-110. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2012.667321.

A study of three separate nationally representative samples of nearly 9,000 U.S. military veterans found psychological well-being – defined in terms of having a high sense of purpose, social connectedness, and happiness – to be significantly diminished among veteran suicide attempt survivors relative to nonattempters, even decades after their last attempt.¹

Bradley Brown

Despite the trend toward diminished well-being, many veterans who survived a suicide attempt reported average to optimal levels of well-being. Specifically, 52%-60% of veterans reporting a prior suicide attempt also reported experiencing as much purpose, social connection, and happiness as veterans without a suicide attempt history. Remarkably, a small subset (2-7%) of veteran attempt survivors even reported higher levels of well-being than veterans without a suicide attempt history.

Thus, while a prior suicide attempt was associated with reduced well-being on average, many veterans who survived a suicide attempt can and do go on to live enriching lives.

These data are notable because, in 2021, approximately 1.4 million U.S. adults made a nonfatal suicide attempt. Historically, suicide research has understandably emphasized the study of risk factors that increase the likelihood that someone dies by suicide. Given that a prior suicide attempt is among the top risk factors for suicide, virtually all research on suicide attempt survivors has focused on their elevated risk for future suicidality. Yet, 9 out of 10 people who have made a nonfatal suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. It is thus critical to investigate the quality of life of the millions of suicide attempt survivors.

To date, we know little about a question keenly important to suicide attempt survivors and their loved ones: What is the possibility of rebuilding a meaningful, high-quality life after a suicide attempt?

In addition to reporting on the prevalence of high levels of psychological well-being after a nonfatal suicide attempt, it is pivotal to investigate factors that may help facilitate this outcome. To that end, we identified personal characteristics associated with high levels of well-being. Notably, it was malleable psychological strengths such as optimism and a curious mindset, more than the mere absence of symptoms, that were linked to higher levels of well-being among veteran suicide attempt survivors.

Current suicide prevention interventions and treatments, which often focus on mitigating immediate suicide risk by treating symptoms, may be overlooking the importance of cultivating and building psychological strengths that may help promote greater well-being and enriched lives. Moreover, treatments that emphasize such strengths might be particularly fruitful in mitigating suicide risk in veterans, as veterans may be more receptive to prevention and treatment initiatives that embrace the cultivation and bolstering of strengths that are inherent in military culture and values, such as resilience and perseverance in the face of life challenges.²

One notable caveat to this study is that the data were cross-sectional, meaning they were collected at a single time point. As such, the authors cannot conclude that factors such as curiosity necessarily caused higher levels of well-being in veterans, as opposed to well-being causing higher levels of curiosity.

Similarly, while one can infer that psychological well-being was near-absent at the time of a suicide attempt, well-being of attempt survivors was not assessed before their attempt. Longitudinal studies that follow attempt survivors over time are needed to understand how well-being changes over time for suicide attempt survivors and the causal chain in what predicts that change.

Nevertheless, the results of this large, multicohort study serve as an important first step toward a more comprehensive view of prognosis after a suicide attempt. Just as the process that leads to a suicide attempt is complex, so too is the process of recovery after an attempt. While this study provides sound estimates of well-being outcomes and some possible candidates that might facilitate these outcomes, a critical next step for future research is to replicate and extend these findings. To do so, it is pivotal to extend the assessment scope beyond symptom-based measures and include measures of well-being.

Additionally, the investment in resources into longer-term examinations following suicide attempts is essential to understand different pathways toward achieving greater well-being. Providing hope is vital and potentially lifesaving, as one of the most common experiences reported before a suicide attempt is an unremitting sense of hopelessness. Continued research on well-being has the potential to impart a more balanced, nuanced prognosis after a suicide attempt that challenges perceptions of an invariably bleak prospect of recovery after suicidality.

Collectively, these results highlight the importance of broadening the scope of how the mental health field views and treats psychiatric difficulties to include a greater focus on recovery-based outcomes and personal strengths that help facilitate recovery from adverse life experiences such as suicide attempts.

People desire lives that they enjoy and find meaningful, and having a history of suicide attempts does not preclude the prospect of such a life. It is time that suicide research reflects the vast landscape of potential outcomes after a suicide attempt that goes beyond the prediction of future suicide risk.

Mr. Brown is a doctoral student of clinical psychology at the University of South Florida, Tampa. Dr. Rottenberg is director of the Mood and Emotion Lab and area director of the department of clinical psychology, University of South Florida.

References

1. Brown BA et al. Psychological well-being in US veterans with non-fatal suicide attempts: A multi-cohort population-based study. J Affect Disord. 2022 Oct 1;314:34-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.07.003.

2. Bryan CJ et al. Understanding and preventing military suicide. Arch Suicide Res. 2012;16(2):95-110. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2012.667321.

A study of three separate nationally representative samples of nearly 9,000 U.S. military veterans found psychological well-being – defined in terms of having a high sense of purpose, social connectedness, and happiness – to be significantly diminished among veteran suicide attempt survivors relative to nonattempters, even decades after their last attempt.¹

Bradley Brown

Despite the trend toward diminished well-being, many veterans who survived a suicide attempt reported average to optimal levels of well-being. Specifically, 52%-60% of veterans reporting a prior suicide attempt also reported experiencing as much purpose, social connection, and happiness as veterans without a suicide attempt history. Remarkably, a small subset (2-7%) of veteran attempt survivors even reported higher levels of well-being than veterans without a suicide attempt history.

Thus, while a prior suicide attempt was associated with reduced well-being on average, many veterans who survived a suicide attempt can and do go on to live enriching lives.

These data are notable because, in 2021, approximately 1.4 million U.S. adults made a nonfatal suicide attempt. Historically, suicide research has understandably emphasized the study of risk factors that increase the likelihood that someone dies by suicide. Given that a prior suicide attempt is among the top risk factors for suicide, virtually all research on suicide attempt survivors has focused on their elevated risk for future suicidality. Yet, 9 out of 10 people who have made a nonfatal suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. It is thus critical to investigate the quality of life of the millions of suicide attempt survivors.

To date, we know little about a question keenly important to suicide attempt survivors and their loved ones: What is the possibility of rebuilding a meaningful, high-quality life after a suicide attempt?

In addition to reporting on the prevalence of high levels of psychological well-being after a nonfatal suicide attempt, it is pivotal to investigate factors that may help facilitate this outcome. To that end, we identified personal characteristics associated with high levels of well-being. Notably, it was malleable psychological strengths such as optimism and a curious mindset, more than the mere absence of symptoms, that were linked to higher levels of well-being among veteran suicide attempt survivors.

Current suicide prevention interventions and treatments, which often focus on mitigating immediate suicide risk by treating symptoms, may be overlooking the importance of cultivating and building psychological strengths that may help promote greater well-being and enriched lives. Moreover, treatments that emphasize such strengths might be particularly fruitful in mitigating suicide risk in veterans, as veterans may be more receptive to prevention and treatment initiatives that embrace the cultivation and bolstering of strengths that are inherent in military culture and values, such as resilience and perseverance in the face of life challenges.²

One notable caveat to this study is that the data were cross-sectional, meaning they were collected at a single time point. As such, the authors cannot conclude that factors such as curiosity necessarily caused higher levels of well-being in veterans, as opposed to well-being causing higher levels of curiosity.

Similarly, while one can infer that psychological well-being was near-absent at the time of a suicide attempt, well-being of attempt survivors was not assessed before their attempt. Longitudinal studies that follow attempt survivors over time are needed to understand how well-being changes over time for suicide attempt survivors and the causal chain in what predicts that change.

Nevertheless, the results of this large, multicohort study serve as an important first step toward a more comprehensive view of prognosis after a suicide attempt. Just as the process that leads to a suicide attempt is complex, so too is the process of recovery after an attempt. While this study provides sound estimates of well-being outcomes and some possible candidates that might facilitate these outcomes, a critical next step for future research is to replicate and extend these findings. To do so, it is pivotal to extend the assessment scope beyond symptom-based measures and include measures of well-being.

Additionally, the investment in resources into longer-term examinations following suicide attempts is essential to understand different pathways toward achieving greater well-being. Providing hope is vital and potentially lifesaving, as one of the most common experiences reported before a suicide attempt is an unremitting sense of hopelessness. Continued research on well-being has the potential to impart a more balanced, nuanced prognosis after a suicide attempt that challenges perceptions of an invariably bleak prospect of recovery after suicidality.

Collectively, these results highlight the importance of broadening the scope of how the mental health field views and treats psychiatric difficulties to include a greater focus on recovery-based outcomes and personal strengths that help facilitate recovery from adverse life experiences such as suicide attempts.

People desire lives that they enjoy and find meaningful, and having a history of suicide attempts does not preclude the prospect of such a life. It is time that suicide research reflects the vast landscape of potential outcomes after a suicide attempt that goes beyond the prediction of future suicide risk.

Mr. Brown is a doctoral student of clinical psychology at the University of South Florida, Tampa. Dr. Rottenberg is director of the Mood and Emotion Lab and area director of the department of clinical psychology, University of South Florida.

References

1. Brown BA et al. Psychological well-being in US veterans with non-fatal suicide attempts: A multi-cohort population-based study. J Affect Disord. 2022 Oct 1;314:34-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.07.003.

2. Bryan CJ et al. Understanding and preventing military suicide. Arch Suicide Res. 2012;16(2):95-110. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2012.667321.