Perspectives

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

The past year brought major changes in preventive standards for anxiety, HIV, and RSV along with new guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. For insight into the effect on internal medicine, we turned to Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, a Houston internist who specializes in the care of high-risk older adults.


Q: Which new prevention guidelines had the most impact on you over the past year?

A: I’m a primary care doctor, and most of the internal medicine updates that are interesting to me focus on how we can keep people from getting sick in the first place. That’s especially important in light of the fact that we had a decrease in life expectancy of 2 years [it finally rose slightly in 2022] and widening of the gender gap in life expectancy for men and women.

I’m excited to see new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, including a new one about using PREP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] to preventively treat anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV. That’s a big one because it’s one of the first times that we’ve identified at-risk groups for screening based on social risk factors, not gender, age, or genetics.

The new recommendation is PREP for anyone who’s at risk for getting HIV because they have a partner with HIV, had an sexually transmitted infection in the last 6 months, or a history of inconsistent or no condom use with partners with unknown HIV status.

PREP therapy is something that most primary care physicians can either do or learn how to do pretty easily. But the treatment does require maintenance and monitoring.
 

Q: How firm is this recommendation?

A: The task force gives different grades for their recommendations based on how strong the evidence is. For the guidelines about PREP, they give a grade of A. That means this is top of the class: You should definitely do this.


Q: What are the best strategies to ask patients personal questions about their sex lives in order to evaluate their risk?

A: A lot of internal medicine physicians are getting pretty good at this. We see it as part of our job just the same way as we asked things like, “How often are you walking?” and “Have you been feeling down?”

There’s no one right way to have a conversation like that. But it’s key to say, as I do to my patients, that “I’m not here to judge anything. I am truly here to gather information and make recommendations to you as a partner in your care.”  
 

Q: What other guidelines made an impact in 2023?

A: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made a recommendation to screen adults aged 18-64 for anxiety, and this guidance got a B grade. [The task force said there’s not enough evidence to support routine anxiety screening in adults 65 and older.]

The new recommendations is a sign that we’re doing a better job at making treatment of those diseases more acceptable. This is also another example of the medical community recognizing that internal medicine physicians are pretty good at identifying and treating mental health.
 

Q: How do you figure out whether to treat depression/anxiety yourself or refer patients to specialists?

A: As a primary care physician, I feel comfortable diagnosing and managing some mental health disease in my own practice. There are FDA-approved medications for both anxiety and depression that are easily managed by a primary care physician.

And there’s something to the therapeutic relationship, to naming and identifying these conditions with your patients. Some patients feel a bit of relief just knowing that they have a diagnosis.
 

Q: What should internists know about the new CDC guidelines that promote discussing RSV vaccines with patients who are over 60?

A: The vaccines are recommended for folks who have underlying conditions like lung disease or heart disease. Those are the ones who end up getting really, really sick. There are two adult vaccines that are available, and there’s not a preference for one over the other.

The vaccines are both protein-based, like the old-school versions of vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines that we’ve all been hearing more about through COVID. Anybody who’s reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine can rest assured that the RSV is not protein-based. And they are single-dose vaccines, which is helpful.  
 

Q: What else should internists know about that was new in 2023?

A: I’m super excited about how cardiologists are thinking about atrial fibrillation. In 2023, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association came up with a giant overhaul of how they look at atrial fibrillation. They classify it in stages and allows us to think about stopping it before it starts.

They’re talking about something they’re calling preclinical or subclinical atrial fibrillation, which you may detect on wearables like somebody’s watch or another tool used to monitor heart rate or exercise. It might be the first harbinger that there’s something wrong with the heart rate, and they may not even have symptoms of it. [A 2023 study in The New England Journal of Medicine linked the anticoagulant apixaban, or Eliquis, to a 37% lower risk of stroke and systemic embolism rates in older patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation but an 80% higher risk of major bleeding vs. aspirin therapy.]

And they’re now recommending early rhythm control.
 

Q: What does early rhythm control mean for patients and physicians?

A: For the longest time, we have thought about atrial fibrillation treatment in terms of rate control and not worrying too much about the rhythm. But now we recognize that it’s actually really important that we get the rhythm under control because physical changes to the heart can lead to permanent damage.

So now they’re recommending catheter ablation as first-line therapy in some patients as a class 1 recommendation because heart function is already decreased. Improving the ability of the heart to beat with a regular rhythm can lead to improvement of function. This was unheard of even 5 years ago.
 

Q: Should internists be more willing to refer patients with atrial fibrillation to cardiologists?

A: Yes, I think so. One of the biggest changes for me is that I am going to refer new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation to a cardiologist. And I’m going to ask patients if they have wearable devices because sometimes those things might tell me about something like subclinical atrial fibrillation.

Q: There’s also detailed data about atrial fibrillation risk factors, which include older age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol use, diabetes, height, obesity, diabetes, and others. Is this information useful?

A: It’s a really great tool to have in the arsenal because it helps me have shared decision-making conversations with my patients in a way that’s much more convincing. A patient might say, “Why do you care if I drink so much? My liver levels are fine.” And I can say, “It’s going to be a risk factor for having problems with your heart.”

For better or worse, people really take the heart very seriously, I am an internal medicine physician, so I love all the organs equally. But man, people get pretty scared when you tell them something can affect their heart. So when I talk to patients about their risk factors, it’s going to really be helpful that I can remind them of the impact that some of these lifestyle behaviors can have on their heart health.
 

Dr. Candler has no disclosures.

Dear colleagues,

In this issue of Perspectives, we explore the impact of substance use on liver transplantation (LT). With recent dramatic improvements in treating hepatitis C, alcoholic liver disease has now become the leading indication for LT. Determining candidacy for a transplanted liver is a rigorous process and there has always been concern for relapse to alcohol use and its effect on the implanted graft. But, have we been too strict in restricting access in such patients?

Drs. Mitchell Mah’moud and John Aita explore this topic with a concise review of the current literature through an ethical lens. After alcohol, the most commonly used psychotropic drug is marijuana. Marijuana has traditionally been a barrier to candidacy for LT but, as with alcohol, should transplant centers relax this restriction, especially with ongoing legalization across the United States? Dr. Mohamed Shoreibah and colleagues explore this topic though a cogent review of the literature assessing the impact of marijuana use on liver transplant outcomes. We hope these essays will help your medical practice and ongoing advocacy for your patients.

We welcome your thoughts on X at @AGA_GIHN.

Yale University

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Liver transplantation in the setting of alcohol-related liver disease

BY MITCHELL MAH’MOUD, MD, FACG, AGAF, FAASLD, AND JOHN AITA, MD

Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), with its subset of severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (SAH), currently accounts for most liver transplantation (LT) recipients in the United States. Patients with SAH, particularly those with a MELD-NA of at least 35, have a 70%-75% mortality rate within 6 months. The ethics of liver transplantation in the setting of SAH are complex and still controversial. With liver transplantation in general, there are more patients with various disorders listed for transplant than available organs. There may also be concern regarding a posttransplant return to harmful alcohol use leading to graft dysfunction or loss. Ultimately, in ethics terms, there is an inherent conflict between the values of beneficence (the obligation to act for an individual patient’s benefit) and justice (fair and equitable treatment of a society).

Duke University

The past decade has yielded supportive data depicting adequate posttransplant (LT) survival in select SAH patients. Previously, 6 months of alcohol sobriety was typically mandated by LT centers. Reasons for this requirement included (a) documentation of sobriety (including enrollment in an alcohol rehabilitation program) and (b) determination of maximal recovery (such that transplant may not be indicated). Present day information shows poor correlation between the 6-month alcohol sobriety period and reduced posttransplant alcohol use. In particular, the ACCELERATE-AH study, in which patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis underwent LT before 6 months of abstinence, demonstrated post-LT survival rates of 94% at 1 year and 84% at 3 years, similar to post-LT survival rates of other LT recipients. Although other factors may play into a transplant committee’s decision to require a period of sobriety before liver transplant evaluation, these data suggest that a “one size fits all” mandatory sobriety period prior to LT evaluation is now incongruent with normative medical practice.

Cleveland Clinic

One overarching principle of LT is that society provides organs to those patients with the greatest need. An inherent effect of listing select patients with SAH for liver transplant is that it potentially increases the wait time (and therefore the mortality risk) for other liver disease patients. Unfortunately, alcohol use disorder (AUD) has increased significantly in recent years among younger patients (from 2001 to 2013), and some patients may even be at greater risk of ALD (e.g., PNPLA3, TM6SF2, polymorphisms or post gastric bypass) with even mild/moderate use compared to other individuals . LT should not be considered a cure for AUD but rather a treatment for SAH that carries a high mortality rate but comparable post-LT survival to other indications for LT. Data from the ACCELERATE-AH trial revealed a cumulative incidence of any alcohol use at 1 year of approximately 25% and at 3 years of 34% for post-LT patients with SAH. This is roughly equivalent to reported disease recurrence rates of 10%-40% over 1-10 years post-LT for AIH, PBC and PSC and 7%-33% for MASLD. Despite these data, concern for reemergence of metabolic syndrome has never been an impediment when evaluating patients for LT due to end-stage liver disease from MASLD. LT centers may have a selection pathway that permits judicious transplant evaluation for SAH patients who, in the context of beneficence, are felt to greatly benefit from liver transplant in the near term (and are felt unlikely to recover without transplant) while, in the spirit of the ethical tenet of justice, also yield the best suitability for the donated organ (meaning the organ was put to good use with adequate graft survival). In this setting, a liver transplant program may utilize tools such as S-DAT, the PACT scoring system and TERS in identifying candidates with SAH for LT and those who are likely to relapse post-LT.

The optimal role of liver transplant in SAH patients is still emerging, but recent evidence suggests that the post-LT survival rate and alcohol-relapse rate appear to be acceptable. Nonetheless, the need to prevent harmful and sustained alcohol use post LT is vital since it is considered the strongest predictor of graft loss and death. Recent observations have also highlighted younger age and consumption of >10 drinks/day within 6 months of LT as predictors of sustained alcohol use post-LT. Hence, early identification of sustained alcohol use post-LT coupled with timely interventions based on abstinence-promoting behavioral and pharmacologic therapy should remain the goal of all transplant centers to avoid relapse and alcohol related deaths. In addition, incorporating addiction treatment centers into post-LT management should be considered standard of care to provide continued therapy for AUD in all patients post-LT. As in the DAA era of hepatitis C therapies, the role of LT in the setting of SAH may dwindle as emerging SAH-specific therapies evolve resulting in adequate transplant-free survival. Until then, it is beneficial to refine the guidelines periodically across all the UNOS regions on patient selection for LT in SAH, consistent with ethical principles of beneficence and justice. Finally, despite the concern about return to harmful drinking post LT, the need to destigmatize AUD and explain the purpose of LT for SAH through public education is vital.
 

Dr. Mah’moud is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C., and a gastroenterologist with RMG Gastroenterology in North Carolina. Dr. Aita is gastroenterologist with Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital in Vero Beach, Fla. Dr. Mah’moud disclosed serving on the advisory board of CLDF, and receiving research support from Intercept Pharma and Gilead Scientific, but not in a capacity related to this article.

References

Tapper E. BMJ. 2018;362: k2817

Louvet A. Lancet Gastro Hep. 2022;7(5):416-25

Lee B. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:422-30

Shroff H. Hot Topics in Hepatology: Chicago ALF Debate. Clinical Liver Disease (2020 vol 16, No.5: 178-85)

High Stakes: Navigating the Hazy Intersection of Marijuana and Liver Transplants

BY JOVEN TRISTEZA, MD, THOMAS RULI, MD, AND MOHAMED SHOREIBAH, MD

Marijuana remains a topic of controversy even amidst the ever-changing sociopolitical landscape, particularly in the United States.

Marijuana is currently illegal at the federal level and is listed as a schedule I substance. However, marijuana for medical and recreational use has been legalized by several states, leading to an increase in its use. This unclear and disparate status of marijuana has created a smoky situation for patients being evaluated for liver transplant. Multiple studies have shown marijuana to provide medical benefits, while other studies in liver transplant patients have shown that it does not affect posttransplant outcomes. Those studies have helped inform decision-making for liver transplant selection committees across the country, where marijuana use is evaluated in the context of the patient’s medical and social history, as well as the history of other substance use. Though we do not encourage its use, we do not believe that marijuana use should be the singular reason to deny a patient listing for liver transplant.

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Marijuana has been studied extensively regarding its effects on the human body. The main compounds in marijuana are tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and cannabidiol, or CBD. These compounds exhibit many effects that we observe clinically through the endocannabinoid system. Beneficial effects related to the gastrointestinal tract include relief from nausea and vomiting and stimulation of appetite in patients with anorexia. Other benefits outside the GI tract include alleviation of chronic pain and management of some forms of drug-resistant epilepsy. Ongoing studies are investigating the role of marijuana in other medical conditions.^1,2 At least equally notable are marijuana’s potential adverse effects, which include tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, nausea, psychosis, and hallucinations.² Marijuana may also increase the risk of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke.³

University of Alabama at Birmingham

The exact effect of marijuana on the liver remains inconclusive. Receptors for endocannabinoids have been associated with steatosis and fibrosis in some studies. However, some evidence also suggests that marijuana may reduce inflammation in the liver.² Small, prospective studies have not been able to link marijuana use with hepatic laboratory abnormalities, and there is currently no significant association between marijuana and liver disease, injury, or cirrhosis. Of particular relevance to liver transplant recipients is marijuana’s effect on cytochrome P450 enzyme function, especially CYP3A4 which is the CYP class that metabolizes tacrolimus, a common immunosuppressant used in liver transplant patients. Marijuana inhibits CYP3A4 which could increase tacrolimus levels, potentially leading to morbidity. One strategy to mitigate this process is closer monitoring of tacrolimus levels for patients using marijuana.

The once-presumed increased risk of fungal infection — particularly Aspergillus — for liver transplant patients who use marijuana has been refuted. Furthermore, there have been concerns by liver transplant selection committees that marijuana use may be related to a greater risk of post–liver transplant noncompliance, infections, or even death. However, marijuana use on its own has not been associated with these concerns in the liver transplant population.⁴ 

The practice of excluding marijuana users from being listed for liver transplant does not appear to be evidence based. In a 2018 study focusing on US transplant centers, 40% of centers would not accept any marijuana use, and only 28% would list those who were taking medical marijuana for transplant. Interestingly, eight states have passed legislation prohibiting withholding transplant evaluation for marijuana users if it is solely based on their marijuana use.⁵ In the 5 years since that study was published, there have been major changes in the legality of marijuana. A future study of interest could assess how these changes have affected the position of transplant centers.

University of Alabama at Birmingham

The sociopolitical and transplant medicine worlds alike continue to adapt to the legalization of marijuana. While marijuana use is associated with adverse effects, its potential for benefit for a variety of medical conditions is an evolving area that has shown promise. It is therefore logical to view marijuana as a pharmacologic agent with potential for risks and benefits, but not necessarily a sole reason to exclude patients from listing for liver transplant. The current data are reassuring in that those who use marijuana and receive liver transplantation are not at higher risk of posttransplant complications, infections, or death when compared to those who do not use it. Should marijuana use exist in the context of substance use disorder or other behavioral and mental health issues, then the case warrants careful multidisciplinary evaluation prior to consideration for liver transplant. The aim of our discourse is not to encourage the use of marijuana in patients being considered for liver transplant but rather to discourage their exclusion from listing solely on the basis of marijuana use. In the pursuit of an equitable organ allocation system, our hope is that this work facilitates a more informed discussion and a change in policy in liver transplant programs that may still consider marijuana use an exclusion criterion.

Joven Tristeza, MD, and Thomas Ruli, MD, are residents in internal medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Mohamed Shoreibah, MD, is a specialist in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham where he also serves on the faculty of the internal medicine residency program. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Cox, EJ. Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2019;201:25-38.

2. Maselli, DB. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2021;19(9):1748-1758.e2.

3. Page, RL. Circulation. 2020;142(10):e131-e152.

4. Panchani, N. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 2023;365(2):115-120.

5. Zhu, J. Transplantation. 2018;102(3):433-439.

Dear colleagues,

In this issue of Perspectives, we explore the impact of substance use on liver transplantation (LT). With recent dramatic improvements in treating hepatitis C, alcoholic liver disease has now become the leading indication for LT. Determining candidacy for a transplanted liver is a rigorous process and there has always been concern for relapse to alcohol use and its effect on the implanted graft. But, have we been too strict in restricting access in such patients?

Drs. Mitchell Mah’moud and John Aita explore this topic with a concise review of the current literature through an ethical lens. After alcohol, the most commonly used psychotropic drug is marijuana. Marijuana has traditionally been a barrier to candidacy for LT but, as with alcohol, should transplant centers relax this restriction, especially with ongoing legalization across the United States? Dr. Mohamed Shoreibah and colleagues explore this topic though a cogent review of the literature assessing the impact of marijuana use on liver transplant outcomes. We hope these essays will help your medical practice and ongoing advocacy for your patients.

We welcome your thoughts on X at @AGA_GIHN.

Yale University

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Liver transplantation in the setting of alcohol-related liver disease

BY MITCHELL MAH’MOUD, MD, FACG, AGAF, FAASLD, AND JOHN AITA, MD

Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), with its subset of severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (SAH), currently accounts for most liver transplantation (LT) recipients in the United States. Patients with SAH, particularly those with a MELD-NA of at least 35, have a 70%-75% mortality rate within 6 months. The ethics of liver transplantation in the setting of SAH are complex and still controversial. With liver transplantation in general, there are more patients with various disorders listed for transplant than available organs. There may also be concern regarding a posttransplant return to harmful alcohol use leading to graft dysfunction or loss. Ultimately, in ethics terms, there is an inherent conflict between the values of beneficence (the obligation to act for an individual patient’s benefit) and justice (fair and equitable treatment of a society).

Duke University

The past decade has yielded supportive data depicting adequate posttransplant (LT) survival in select SAH patients. Previously, 6 months of alcohol sobriety was typically mandated by LT centers. Reasons for this requirement included (a) documentation of sobriety (including enrollment in an alcohol rehabilitation program) and (b) determination of maximal recovery (such that transplant may not be indicated). Present day information shows poor correlation between the 6-month alcohol sobriety period and reduced posttransplant alcohol use. In particular, the ACCELERATE-AH study, in which patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis underwent LT before 6 months of abstinence, demonstrated post-LT survival rates of 94% at 1 year and 84% at 3 years, similar to post-LT survival rates of other LT recipients. Although other factors may play into a transplant committee’s decision to require a period of sobriety before liver transplant evaluation, these data suggest that a “one size fits all” mandatory sobriety period prior to LT evaluation is now incongruent with normative medical practice.

Cleveland Clinic

One overarching principle of LT is that society provides organs to those patients with the greatest need. An inherent effect of listing select patients with SAH for liver transplant is that it potentially increases the wait time (and therefore the mortality risk) for other liver disease patients. Unfortunately, alcohol use disorder (AUD) has increased significantly in recent years among younger patients (from 2001 to 2013), and some patients may even be at greater risk of ALD (e.g., PNPLA3, TM6SF2, polymorphisms or post gastric bypass) with even mild/moderate use compared to other individuals . LT should not be considered a cure for AUD but rather a treatment for SAH that carries a high mortality rate but comparable post-LT survival to other indications for LT. Data from the ACCELERATE-AH trial revealed a cumulative incidence of any alcohol use at 1 year of approximately 25% and at 3 years of 34% for post-LT patients with SAH. This is roughly equivalent to reported disease recurrence rates of 10%-40% over 1-10 years post-LT for AIH, PBC and PSC and 7%-33% for MASLD. Despite these data, concern for reemergence of metabolic syndrome has never been an impediment when evaluating patients for LT due to end-stage liver disease from MASLD. LT centers may have a selection pathway that permits judicious transplant evaluation for SAH patients who, in the context of beneficence, are felt to greatly benefit from liver transplant in the near term (and are felt unlikely to recover without transplant) while, in the spirit of the ethical tenet of justice, also yield the best suitability for the donated organ (meaning the organ was put to good use with adequate graft survival). In this setting, a liver transplant program may utilize tools such as S-DAT, the PACT scoring system and TERS in identifying candidates with SAH for LT and those who are likely to relapse post-LT.

The optimal role of liver transplant in SAH patients is still emerging, but recent evidence suggests that the post-LT survival rate and alcohol-relapse rate appear to be acceptable. Nonetheless, the need to prevent harmful and sustained alcohol use post LT is vital since it is considered the strongest predictor of graft loss and death. Recent observations have also highlighted younger age and consumption of >10 drinks/day within 6 months of LT as predictors of sustained alcohol use post-LT. Hence, early identification of sustained alcohol use post-LT coupled with timely interventions based on abstinence-promoting behavioral and pharmacologic therapy should remain the goal of all transplant centers to avoid relapse and alcohol related deaths. In addition, incorporating addiction treatment centers into post-LT management should be considered standard of care to provide continued therapy for AUD in all patients post-LT. As in the DAA era of hepatitis C therapies, the role of LT in the setting of SAH may dwindle as emerging SAH-specific therapies evolve resulting in adequate transplant-free survival. Until then, it is beneficial to refine the guidelines periodically across all the UNOS regions on patient selection for LT in SAH, consistent with ethical principles of beneficence and justice. Finally, despite the concern about return to harmful drinking post LT, the need to destigmatize AUD and explain the purpose of LT for SAH through public education is vital.
 

Dr. Mah’moud is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C., and a gastroenterologist with RMG Gastroenterology in North Carolina. Dr. Aita is gastroenterologist with Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital in Vero Beach, Fla. Dr. Mah’moud disclosed serving on the advisory board of CLDF, and receiving research support from Intercept Pharma and Gilead Scientific, but not in a capacity related to this article.

References

Tapper E. BMJ. 2018;362: k2817

Louvet A. Lancet Gastro Hep. 2022;7(5):416-25

Lee B. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:422-30

Shroff H. Hot Topics in Hepatology: Chicago ALF Debate. Clinical Liver Disease (2020 vol 16, No.5: 178-85)

High Stakes: Navigating the Hazy Intersection of Marijuana and Liver Transplants

BY JOVEN TRISTEZA, MD, THOMAS RULI, MD, AND MOHAMED SHOREIBAH, MD

Marijuana remains a topic of controversy even amidst the ever-changing sociopolitical landscape, particularly in the United States.

Marijuana is currently illegal at the federal level and is listed as a schedule I substance. However, marijuana for medical and recreational use has been legalized by several states, leading to an increase in its use. This unclear and disparate status of marijuana has created a smoky situation for patients being evaluated for liver transplant. Multiple studies have shown marijuana to provide medical benefits, while other studies in liver transplant patients have shown that it does not affect posttransplant outcomes. Those studies have helped inform decision-making for liver transplant selection committees across the country, where marijuana use is evaluated in the context of the patient’s medical and social history, as well as the history of other substance use. Though we do not encourage its use, we do not believe that marijuana use should be the singular reason to deny a patient listing for liver transplant.

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Marijuana has been studied extensively regarding its effects on the human body. The main compounds in marijuana are tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and cannabidiol, or CBD. These compounds exhibit many effects that we observe clinically through the endocannabinoid system. Beneficial effects related to the gastrointestinal tract include relief from nausea and vomiting and stimulation of appetite in patients with anorexia. Other benefits outside the GI tract include alleviation of chronic pain and management of some forms of drug-resistant epilepsy. Ongoing studies are investigating the role of marijuana in other medical conditions.^1,2 At least equally notable are marijuana’s potential adverse effects, which include tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, nausea, psychosis, and hallucinations.² Marijuana may also increase the risk of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke.³

University of Alabama at Birmingham

The exact effect of marijuana on the liver remains inconclusive. Receptors for endocannabinoids have been associated with steatosis and fibrosis in some studies. However, some evidence also suggests that marijuana may reduce inflammation in the liver.² Small, prospective studies have not been able to link marijuana use with hepatic laboratory abnormalities, and there is currently no significant association between marijuana and liver disease, injury, or cirrhosis. Of particular relevance to liver transplant recipients is marijuana’s effect on cytochrome P450 enzyme function, especially CYP3A4 which is the CYP class that metabolizes tacrolimus, a common immunosuppressant used in liver transplant patients. Marijuana inhibits CYP3A4 which could increase tacrolimus levels, potentially leading to morbidity. One strategy to mitigate this process is closer monitoring of tacrolimus levels for patients using marijuana.

The once-presumed increased risk of fungal infection — particularly Aspergillus — for liver transplant patients who use marijuana has been refuted. Furthermore, there have been concerns by liver transplant selection committees that marijuana use may be related to a greater risk of post–liver transplant noncompliance, infections, or even death. However, marijuana use on its own has not been associated with these concerns in the liver transplant population.⁴ 

The practice of excluding marijuana users from being listed for liver transplant does not appear to be evidence based. In a 2018 study focusing on US transplant centers, 40% of centers would not accept any marijuana use, and only 28% would list those who were taking medical marijuana for transplant. Interestingly, eight states have passed legislation prohibiting withholding transplant evaluation for marijuana users if it is solely based on their marijuana use.⁵ In the 5 years since that study was published, there have been major changes in the legality of marijuana. A future study of interest could assess how these changes have affected the position of transplant centers.

University of Alabama at Birmingham

The sociopolitical and transplant medicine worlds alike continue to adapt to the legalization of marijuana. While marijuana use is associated with adverse effects, its potential for benefit for a variety of medical conditions is an evolving area that has shown promise. It is therefore logical to view marijuana as a pharmacologic agent with potential for risks and benefits, but not necessarily a sole reason to exclude patients from listing for liver transplant. The current data are reassuring in that those who use marijuana and receive liver transplantation are not at higher risk of posttransplant complications, infections, or death when compared to those who do not use it. Should marijuana use exist in the context of substance use disorder or other behavioral and mental health issues, then the case warrants careful multidisciplinary evaluation prior to consideration for liver transplant. The aim of our discourse is not to encourage the use of marijuana in patients being considered for liver transplant but rather to discourage their exclusion from listing solely on the basis of marijuana use. In the pursuit of an equitable organ allocation system, our hope is that this work facilitates a more informed discussion and a change in policy in liver transplant programs that may still consider marijuana use an exclusion criterion.

Joven Tristeza, MD, and Thomas Ruli, MD, are residents in internal medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Mohamed Shoreibah, MD, is a specialist in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham where he also serves on the faculty of the internal medicine residency program. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Cox, EJ. Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2019;201:25-38.

2. Maselli, DB. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2021;19(9):1748-1758.e2.

3. Page, RL. Circulation. 2020;142(10):e131-e152.

4. Panchani, N. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 2023;365(2):115-120.

5. Zhu, J. Transplantation. 2018;102(3):433-439.

Dear colleagues,

In this issue of Perspectives, we explore the impact of substance use on liver transplantation (LT). With recent dramatic improvements in treating hepatitis C, alcoholic liver disease has now become the leading indication for LT. Determining candidacy for a transplanted liver is a rigorous process and there has always been concern for relapse to alcohol use and its effect on the implanted graft. But, have we been too strict in restricting access in such patients?

Drs. Mitchell Mah’moud and John Aita explore this topic with a concise review of the current literature through an ethical lens. After alcohol, the most commonly used psychotropic drug is marijuana. Marijuana has traditionally been a barrier to candidacy for LT but, as with alcohol, should transplant centers relax this restriction, especially with ongoing legalization across the United States? Dr. Mohamed Shoreibah and colleagues explore this topic though a cogent review of the literature assessing the impact of marijuana use on liver transplant outcomes. We hope these essays will help your medical practice and ongoing advocacy for your patients.

We welcome your thoughts on X at @AGA_GIHN.

Yale University

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Liver transplantation in the setting of alcohol-related liver disease

BY MITCHELL MAH’MOUD, MD, FACG, AGAF, FAASLD, AND JOHN AITA, MD

Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), with its subset of severe alcohol-associated hepatitis (SAH), currently accounts for most liver transplantation (LT) recipients in the United States. Patients with SAH, particularly those with a MELD-NA of at least 35, have a 70%-75% mortality rate within 6 months. The ethics of liver transplantation in the setting of SAH are complex and still controversial. With liver transplantation in general, there are more patients with various disorders listed for transplant than available organs. There may also be concern regarding a posttransplant return to harmful alcohol use leading to graft dysfunction or loss. Ultimately, in ethics terms, there is an inherent conflict between the values of beneficence (the obligation to act for an individual patient’s benefit) and justice (fair and equitable treatment of a society).

Duke University

The past decade has yielded supportive data depicting adequate posttransplant (LT) survival in select SAH patients. Previously, 6 months of alcohol sobriety was typically mandated by LT centers. Reasons for this requirement included (a) documentation of sobriety (including enrollment in an alcohol rehabilitation program) and (b) determination of maximal recovery (such that transplant may not be indicated). Present day information shows poor correlation between the 6-month alcohol sobriety period and reduced posttransplant alcohol use. In particular, the ACCELERATE-AH study, in which patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis underwent LT before 6 months of abstinence, demonstrated post-LT survival rates of 94% at 1 year and 84% at 3 years, similar to post-LT survival rates of other LT recipients. Although other factors may play into a transplant committee’s decision to require a period of sobriety before liver transplant evaluation, these data suggest that a “one size fits all” mandatory sobriety period prior to LT evaluation is now incongruent with normative medical practice.

Cleveland Clinic

One overarching principle of LT is that society provides organs to those patients with the greatest need. An inherent effect of listing select patients with SAH for liver transplant is that it potentially increases the wait time (and therefore the mortality risk) for other liver disease patients. Unfortunately, alcohol use disorder (AUD) has increased significantly in recent years among younger patients (from 2001 to 2013), and some patients may even be at greater risk of ALD (e.g., PNPLA3, TM6SF2, polymorphisms or post gastric bypass) with even mild/moderate use compared to other individuals . LT should not be considered a cure for AUD but rather a treatment for SAH that carries a high mortality rate but comparable post-LT survival to other indications for LT. Data from the ACCELERATE-AH trial revealed a cumulative incidence of any alcohol use at 1 year of approximately 25% and at 3 years of 34% for post-LT patients with SAH. This is roughly equivalent to reported disease recurrence rates of 10%-40% over 1-10 years post-LT for AIH, PBC and PSC and 7%-33% for MASLD. Despite these data, concern for reemergence of metabolic syndrome has never been an impediment when evaluating patients for LT due to end-stage liver disease from MASLD. LT centers may have a selection pathway that permits judicious transplant evaluation for SAH patients who, in the context of beneficence, are felt to greatly benefit from liver transplant in the near term (and are felt unlikely to recover without transplant) while, in the spirit of the ethical tenet of justice, also yield the best suitability for the donated organ (meaning the organ was put to good use with adequate graft survival). In this setting, a liver transplant program may utilize tools such as S-DAT, the PACT scoring system and TERS in identifying candidates with SAH for LT and those who are likely to relapse post-LT.

The optimal role of liver transplant in SAH patients is still emerging, but recent evidence suggests that the post-LT survival rate and alcohol-relapse rate appear to be acceptable. Nonetheless, the need to prevent harmful and sustained alcohol use post LT is vital since it is considered the strongest predictor of graft loss and death. Recent observations have also highlighted younger age and consumption of >10 drinks/day within 6 months of LT as predictors of sustained alcohol use post-LT. Hence, early identification of sustained alcohol use post-LT coupled with timely interventions based on abstinence-promoting behavioral and pharmacologic therapy should remain the goal of all transplant centers to avoid relapse and alcohol related deaths. In addition, incorporating addiction treatment centers into post-LT management should be considered standard of care to provide continued therapy for AUD in all patients post-LT. As in the DAA era of hepatitis C therapies, the role of LT in the setting of SAH may dwindle as emerging SAH-specific therapies evolve resulting in adequate transplant-free survival. Until then, it is beneficial to refine the guidelines periodically across all the UNOS regions on patient selection for LT in SAH, consistent with ethical principles of beneficence and justice. Finally, despite the concern about return to harmful drinking post LT, the need to destigmatize AUD and explain the purpose of LT for SAH through public education is vital.
 

Dr. Mah’moud is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C., and a gastroenterologist with RMG Gastroenterology in North Carolina. Dr. Aita is gastroenterologist with Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital in Vero Beach, Fla. Dr. Mah’moud disclosed serving on the advisory board of CLDF, and receiving research support from Intercept Pharma and Gilead Scientific, but not in a capacity related to this article.

References

Tapper E. BMJ. 2018;362: k2817

Louvet A. Lancet Gastro Hep. 2022;7(5):416-25

Lee B. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:422-30

Shroff H. Hot Topics in Hepatology: Chicago ALF Debate. Clinical Liver Disease (2020 vol 16, No.5: 178-85)

High Stakes: Navigating the Hazy Intersection of Marijuana and Liver Transplants

BY JOVEN TRISTEZA, MD, THOMAS RULI, MD, AND MOHAMED SHOREIBAH, MD

Marijuana remains a topic of controversy even amidst the ever-changing sociopolitical landscape, particularly in the United States.

Marijuana is currently illegal at the federal level and is listed as a schedule I substance. However, marijuana for medical and recreational use has been legalized by several states, leading to an increase in its use. This unclear and disparate status of marijuana has created a smoky situation for patients being evaluated for liver transplant. Multiple studies have shown marijuana to provide medical benefits, while other studies in liver transplant patients have shown that it does not affect posttransplant outcomes. Those studies have helped inform decision-making for liver transplant selection committees across the country, where marijuana use is evaluated in the context of the patient’s medical and social history, as well as the history of other substance use. Though we do not encourage its use, we do not believe that marijuana use should be the singular reason to deny a patient listing for liver transplant.

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Marijuana has been studied extensively regarding its effects on the human body. The main compounds in marijuana are tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and cannabidiol, or CBD. These compounds exhibit many effects that we observe clinically through the endocannabinoid system. Beneficial effects related to the gastrointestinal tract include relief from nausea and vomiting and stimulation of appetite in patients with anorexia. Other benefits outside the GI tract include alleviation of chronic pain and management of some forms of drug-resistant epilepsy. Ongoing studies are investigating the role of marijuana in other medical conditions.^1,2 At least equally notable are marijuana’s potential adverse effects, which include tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, nausea, psychosis, and hallucinations.² Marijuana may also increase the risk of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke.³

University of Alabama at Birmingham

The exact effect of marijuana on the liver remains inconclusive. Receptors for endocannabinoids have been associated with steatosis and fibrosis in some studies. However, some evidence also suggests that marijuana may reduce inflammation in the liver.² Small, prospective studies have not been able to link marijuana use with hepatic laboratory abnormalities, and there is currently no significant association between marijuana and liver disease, injury, or cirrhosis. Of particular relevance to liver transplant recipients is marijuana’s effect on cytochrome P450 enzyme function, especially CYP3A4 which is the CYP class that metabolizes tacrolimus, a common immunosuppressant used in liver transplant patients. Marijuana inhibits CYP3A4 which could increase tacrolimus levels, potentially leading to morbidity. One strategy to mitigate this process is closer monitoring of tacrolimus levels for patients using marijuana.

The once-presumed increased risk of fungal infection — particularly Aspergillus — for liver transplant patients who use marijuana has been refuted. Furthermore, there have been concerns by liver transplant selection committees that marijuana use may be related to a greater risk of post–liver transplant noncompliance, infections, or even death. However, marijuana use on its own has not been associated with these concerns in the liver transplant population.⁴ 

The practice of excluding marijuana users from being listed for liver transplant does not appear to be evidence based. In a 2018 study focusing on US transplant centers, 40% of centers would not accept any marijuana use, and only 28% would list those who were taking medical marijuana for transplant. Interestingly, eight states have passed legislation prohibiting withholding transplant evaluation for marijuana users if it is solely based on their marijuana use.⁵ In the 5 years since that study was published, there have been major changes in the legality of marijuana. A future study of interest could assess how these changes have affected the position of transplant centers.

University of Alabama at Birmingham

The sociopolitical and transplant medicine worlds alike continue to adapt to the legalization of marijuana. While marijuana use is associated with adverse effects, its potential for benefit for a variety of medical conditions is an evolving area that has shown promise. It is therefore logical to view marijuana as a pharmacologic agent with potential for risks and benefits, but not necessarily a sole reason to exclude patients from listing for liver transplant. The current data are reassuring in that those who use marijuana and receive liver transplantation are not at higher risk of posttransplant complications, infections, or death when compared to those who do not use it. Should marijuana use exist in the context of substance use disorder or other behavioral and mental health issues, then the case warrants careful multidisciplinary evaluation prior to consideration for liver transplant. The aim of our discourse is not to encourage the use of marijuana in patients being considered for liver transplant but rather to discourage their exclusion from listing solely on the basis of marijuana use. In the pursuit of an equitable organ allocation system, our hope is that this work facilitates a more informed discussion and a change in policy in liver transplant programs that may still consider marijuana use an exclusion criterion.

Joven Tristeza, MD, and Thomas Ruli, MD, are residents in internal medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Mohamed Shoreibah, MD, is a specialist in gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham where he also serves on the faculty of the internal medicine residency program. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Cox, EJ. Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2019;201:25-38.

2. Maselli, DB. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2021;19(9):1748-1758.e2.

3. Page, RL. Circulation. 2020;142(10):e131-e152.

4. Panchani, N. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 2023;365(2):115-120.

5. Zhu, J. Transplantation. 2018;102(3):433-439.

Until relatively recently, becoming a physician was a process in which the student began as an apprentice to an already skilled clinician. Eventually, both university- and hospital-based schools became part of the process, but an apprenticeship component persisted. In 1910, with the release of the Flexner Report, medical education here in the United States was revolutionized with a shift toward a more academic and scientific model already in use in Europe. While the path to becoming a physician grew more rigorous and science based when the students moved from the classroom and laboratory to the clinic and bedside, the process necessarily returned to its old one-on-one mentor-learner roots.

The venerable maxim of “See one — Do one — Teach one” that dominated my residency may still occasionally be whispered in the quiet corners of teaching hospitals, but I suspect concerns about risk management have discouraged its frequent application in hands-on situations. The development of artificial intelligence–driven mannequins may have finally relegated this remnant of an old cowboy (and girl) procedure-acquisition strategy to the dusty closet of medical education history.

However, when it comes to non–procedure based learning in clinic and hospital settings, the process continues to be one in which the inexperienced are expected to learn by observing their more experienced (sometimes only slightly more experienced) mentors. There may be some mini “lectures” on the fly during rounds explaining the rationale behind what the learner is observing, but “teaching” is still dominated by “Watch this — Try it when it’s your turn — Then we’ll tell you how you did.”

A recent survey in the journal Hospital Pediatrics reviewed in AAP News suggests that there is a problem with feedback, the final step in this three-step process. The investigators surveyed 52 residents and 21 fellows using a scale developed for industrial applications and found that, with the exception of delivery, the fellows scored better than residents in the feedback process. In interviews with a small subgroup of eight residents, the researchers learned that the two consistent impediments to obtaining feedback were 1) that the hectic pace of patient care placed a limit on opportunities (not surprising) and 2) a culture emphasizing “a positive, nurturing environment may have led physicians to avoid giving constructive criticism because it might hurt resident’s feelings.”

I have a friend who has held human resource (HR) positions in two good-sized teaching hospital systems. He certainly agrees with the time limitations component. He has also been involved in several cases in which trainees have accused senior physicians of harassment and unprofessional behavior because learners took issue with the manner in which they had been given feedback on their performance. One wonders if the institution(s) surveyed in this recent study had already experienced similar cases of discontent and have reacted by being so polite that feedback now lacks a feel of authenticity. This was a very small study, and it is hard to know how applicable the findings would be in a national sample, but I suspect there are more than a few teaching institutions in which kid gloves have become fashionable attire.

As my friend pointed out to me, substantial “generational differences” exist in many work places. Different generations may hold competing value systems when it comes to how feedback should be, and should not be, delivered.

None of us were trained in how to deliver a performance evaluation and feedback regardless of whether it was with one or two rushed sentences on a sprint from room to room on morning rounds or a more relaxed sit-down at the end of a rotation. We tend to lean on our own experiences of receiving feedback from our parents, from coaches, and most often from the models we observed as we came up through the hierarchy of medical training.

Feedback is a tightrope we must all walk along, and we must be acutely aware of the background and expectations of the recipients of well-meaning constructive criticism. I found it refreshing to learn that at least one small population of the trainees may be willing, and even eager, to receive honest feedback even though it sometimes may come with a hard edge.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Until relatively recently, becoming a physician was a process in which the student began as an apprentice to an already skilled clinician. Eventually, both university- and hospital-based schools became part of the process, but an apprenticeship component persisted. In 1910, with the release of the Flexner Report, medical education here in the United States was revolutionized with a shift toward a more academic and scientific model already in use in Europe. While the path to becoming a physician grew more rigorous and science based when the students moved from the classroom and laboratory to the clinic and bedside, the process necessarily returned to its old one-on-one mentor-learner roots.

The venerable maxim of “See one — Do one — Teach one” that dominated my residency may still occasionally be whispered in the quiet corners of teaching hospitals, but I suspect concerns about risk management have discouraged its frequent application in hands-on situations. The development of artificial intelligence–driven mannequins may have finally relegated this remnant of an old cowboy (and girl) procedure-acquisition strategy to the dusty closet of medical education history.

However, when it comes to non–procedure based learning in clinic and hospital settings, the process continues to be one in which the inexperienced are expected to learn by observing their more experienced (sometimes only slightly more experienced) mentors. There may be some mini “lectures” on the fly during rounds explaining the rationale behind what the learner is observing, but “teaching” is still dominated by “Watch this — Try it when it’s your turn — Then we’ll tell you how you did.”

A recent survey in the journal Hospital Pediatrics reviewed in AAP News suggests that there is a problem with feedback, the final step in this three-step process. The investigators surveyed 52 residents and 21 fellows using a scale developed for industrial applications and found that, with the exception of delivery, the fellows scored better than residents in the feedback process. In interviews with a small subgroup of eight residents, the researchers learned that the two consistent impediments to obtaining feedback were 1) that the hectic pace of patient care placed a limit on opportunities (not surprising) and 2) a culture emphasizing “a positive, nurturing environment may have led physicians to avoid giving constructive criticism because it might hurt resident’s feelings.”

I have a friend who has held human resource (HR) positions in two good-sized teaching hospital systems. He certainly agrees with the time limitations component. He has also been involved in several cases in which trainees have accused senior physicians of harassment and unprofessional behavior because learners took issue with the manner in which they had been given feedback on their performance. One wonders if the institution(s) surveyed in this recent study had already experienced similar cases of discontent and have reacted by being so polite that feedback now lacks a feel of authenticity. This was a very small study, and it is hard to know how applicable the findings would be in a national sample, but I suspect there are more than a few teaching institutions in which kid gloves have become fashionable attire.

As my friend pointed out to me, substantial “generational differences” exist in many work places. Different generations may hold competing value systems when it comes to how feedback should be, and should not be, delivered.

None of us were trained in how to deliver a performance evaluation and feedback regardless of whether it was with one or two rushed sentences on a sprint from room to room on morning rounds or a more relaxed sit-down at the end of a rotation. We tend to lean on our own experiences of receiving feedback from our parents, from coaches, and most often from the models we observed as we came up through the hierarchy of medical training.

Feedback is a tightrope we must all walk along, and we must be acutely aware of the background and expectations of the recipients of well-meaning constructive criticism. I found it refreshing to learn that at least one small population of the trainees may be willing, and even eager, to receive honest feedback even though it sometimes may come with a hard edge.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Until relatively recently, becoming a physician was a process in which the student began as an apprentice to an already skilled clinician. Eventually, both university- and hospital-based schools became part of the process, but an apprenticeship component persisted. In 1910, with the release of the Flexner Report, medical education here in the United States was revolutionized with a shift toward a more academic and scientific model already in use in Europe. While the path to becoming a physician grew more rigorous and science based when the students moved from the classroom and laboratory to the clinic and bedside, the process necessarily returned to its old one-on-one mentor-learner roots.

The venerable maxim of “See one — Do one — Teach one” that dominated my residency may still occasionally be whispered in the quiet corners of teaching hospitals, but I suspect concerns about risk management have discouraged its frequent application in hands-on situations. The development of artificial intelligence–driven mannequins may have finally relegated this remnant of an old cowboy (and girl) procedure-acquisition strategy to the dusty closet of medical education history.

However, when it comes to non–procedure based learning in clinic and hospital settings, the process continues to be one in which the inexperienced are expected to learn by observing their more experienced (sometimes only slightly more experienced) mentors. There may be some mini “lectures” on the fly during rounds explaining the rationale behind what the learner is observing, but “teaching” is still dominated by “Watch this — Try it when it’s your turn — Then we’ll tell you how you did.”

A recent survey in the journal Hospital Pediatrics reviewed in AAP News suggests that there is a problem with feedback, the final step in this three-step process. The investigators surveyed 52 residents and 21 fellows using a scale developed for industrial applications and found that, with the exception of delivery, the fellows scored better than residents in the feedback process. In interviews with a small subgroup of eight residents, the researchers learned that the two consistent impediments to obtaining feedback were 1) that the hectic pace of patient care placed a limit on opportunities (not surprising) and 2) a culture emphasizing “a positive, nurturing environment may have led physicians to avoid giving constructive criticism because it might hurt resident’s feelings.”

I have a friend who has held human resource (HR) positions in two good-sized teaching hospital systems. He certainly agrees with the time limitations component. He has also been involved in several cases in which trainees have accused senior physicians of harassment and unprofessional behavior because learners took issue with the manner in which they had been given feedback on their performance. One wonders if the institution(s) surveyed in this recent study had already experienced similar cases of discontent and have reacted by being so polite that feedback now lacks a feel of authenticity. This was a very small study, and it is hard to know how applicable the findings would be in a national sample, but I suspect there are more than a few teaching institutions in which kid gloves have become fashionable attire.

As my friend pointed out to me, substantial “generational differences” exist in many work places. Different generations may hold competing value systems when it comes to how feedback should be, and should not be, delivered.

None of us were trained in how to deliver a performance evaluation and feedback regardless of whether it was with one or two rushed sentences on a sprint from room to room on morning rounds or a more relaxed sit-down at the end of a rotation. We tend to lean on our own experiences of receiving feedback from our parents, from coaches, and most often from the models we observed as we came up through the hierarchy of medical training.

Feedback is a tightrope we must all walk along, and we must be acutely aware of the background and expectations of the recipients of well-meaning constructive criticism. I found it refreshing to learn that at least one small population of the trainees may be willing, and even eager, to receive honest feedback even though it sometimes may come with a hard edge.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A recent Reuters article reported that the manufacturer of the leading antiobesity medication semaglutide (Wegovy) “showers money on U.S. obesity doctors.”

Hello. I’d like to be showered.

According to the article, Novo Nordisk, Wegovy/Ozempic manufacturer, paid medical professionals $25.8 million in “fees and expenses” over a decade.

I think all doctors — who spend a decade of their life in training only to emerge with thousands of dollars in debt — would like to be similarly compensated for their expertise.

Yet, many of us forgo lucrative private practices or industry jobs to work at academic medical centers because we wish to pursue our original mission: To provide the best patient care possible.

Fulfilling this mission in today’s “sickcare” system means being more than a clinician. We become researchers, educators, advocates, mentors, consultants, and advisors. We do so because the system compels us to find other ways to provide quality health care, outside of clinic walls. These ways often include:

• Educating the public through media, social media, or community events.
• Training students, residents, and fellows on the latest medical knowledge.
• Advising industry innovators and entrepreneurs who seek our expertise.

Personally, I engaged in these activities because working 8-5 seeing 20 patients a day wasn’t enough. I wanted to help more people, more quickly. When I was faced with these opportunities, I was excited to say “yes” and never thought to ask for compensation because I didn’t want to seem ungrateful.

Eventually, I learned to ask for compensation.

And then I learned to decide my value.

The Reuters article reports that obesity medicine experts Drs. Lee Kaplan, Donna Ryan, Ania Jastreboff, and Jamy Ard were paid thousands of dollars in consulting fees over a decade. This industry-to-physician relationship should be celebrated because:

• Industries should consult experts in the field.
• These leaders have dedicated decades of their lives to understanding and solving the obesity epidemic.
• This collaboration has resulted in a therapeutic option that is changing lives. 

If there is anything to criticize, it should be:

• The expectation that medical expertise should be free.Wegovy’s manufacturer is worth $403 billion, and the experts are valued at less than 0.1% of that figure.
• The lack of context.
• Some celebrity doctors can earn $300,000 in just one consult. Other medical or surgical specialties are valued at 100 times more than obesity specialists. 
• The false dichotomy.
• Just because money is involved, it doesn’t mean the product is invalid.

Industry and physician relationships have long been examined. Such financial relationships are always disclosed (eg, at conferences, in publications). The Sunshine Act of 2010 and Open Payments provide the necessary transparency for people to decide for themselves whether there were financial incentives or potential conflicts of interest.

We should also take it a step further and ask ourselves: Do conflicts of interest require us to dismiss the end result? In other words, just because the pharmaceutical industry pays these doctors for their time and expertise, does that mean their life’s work is wrong, or that the drug isn’t effective?

In the case of obesity, Wegovy speaks for itself. Remember that the manufacturer stopped advertising. When a disease finally has a treatment, it does not need promoters or salespersons. Just speak to any person with obesity.

Ultimately, I see three main takeaways from Reuters’ reporting:

• The weight loss industry needs more obesity medicine experts. 
• We should value ourselves more.
• When people with resources work with people who have the commitment, knowledge, and experience, we can find a solution that saves lives. 

Dr. Tchang received $5525 in 2022 in consulting fees from Novo Nordisk. She plans to ask for more. She also disclosed ties with Gelesis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent Reuters article reported that the manufacturer of the leading antiobesity medication semaglutide (Wegovy) “showers money on U.S. obesity doctors.”

Hello. I’d like to be showered.

According to the article, Novo Nordisk, Wegovy/Ozempic manufacturer, paid medical professionals $25.8 million in “fees and expenses” over a decade.

I think all doctors — who spend a decade of their life in training only to emerge with thousands of dollars in debt — would like to be similarly compensated for their expertise.

Yet, many of us forgo lucrative private practices or industry jobs to work at academic medical centers because we wish to pursue our original mission: To provide the best patient care possible.

Fulfilling this mission in today’s “sickcare” system means being more than a clinician. We become researchers, educators, advocates, mentors, consultants, and advisors. We do so because the system compels us to find other ways to provide quality health care, outside of clinic walls. These ways often include:

• Educating the public through media, social media, or community events.
• Training students, residents, and fellows on the latest medical knowledge.
• Advising industry innovators and entrepreneurs who seek our expertise.

Personally, I engaged in these activities because working 8-5 seeing 20 patients a day wasn’t enough. I wanted to help more people, more quickly. When I was faced with these opportunities, I was excited to say “yes” and never thought to ask for compensation because I didn’t want to seem ungrateful.

Eventually, I learned to ask for compensation.

And then I learned to decide my value.

The Reuters article reports that obesity medicine experts Drs. Lee Kaplan, Donna Ryan, Ania Jastreboff, and Jamy Ard were paid thousands of dollars in consulting fees over a decade. This industry-to-physician relationship should be celebrated because:

• Industries should consult experts in the field.
• These leaders have dedicated decades of their lives to understanding and solving the obesity epidemic.
• This collaboration has resulted in a therapeutic option that is changing lives. 

If there is anything to criticize, it should be:

• The expectation that medical expertise should be free.Wegovy’s manufacturer is worth $403 billion, and the experts are valued at less than 0.1% of that figure.
• The lack of context.
• Some celebrity doctors can earn $300,000 in just one consult. Other medical or surgical specialties are valued at 100 times more than obesity specialists. 
• The false dichotomy.
• Just because money is involved, it doesn’t mean the product is invalid.

Industry and physician relationships have long been examined. Such financial relationships are always disclosed (eg, at conferences, in publications). The Sunshine Act of 2010 and Open Payments provide the necessary transparency for people to decide for themselves whether there were financial incentives or potential conflicts of interest.

We should also take it a step further and ask ourselves: Do conflicts of interest require us to dismiss the end result? In other words, just because the pharmaceutical industry pays these doctors for their time and expertise, does that mean their life’s work is wrong, or that the drug isn’t effective?

In the case of obesity, Wegovy speaks for itself. Remember that the manufacturer stopped advertising. When a disease finally has a treatment, it does not need promoters or salespersons. Just speak to any person with obesity.

Ultimately, I see three main takeaways from Reuters’ reporting:

• The weight loss industry needs more obesity medicine experts. 
• We should value ourselves more.
• When people with resources work with people who have the commitment, knowledge, and experience, we can find a solution that saves lives. 

Dr. Tchang received $5525 in 2022 in consulting fees from Novo Nordisk. She plans to ask for more. She also disclosed ties with Gelesis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent Reuters article reported that the manufacturer of the leading antiobesity medication semaglutide (Wegovy) “showers money on U.S. obesity doctors.”

Hello. I’d like to be showered.

According to the article, Novo Nordisk, Wegovy/Ozempic manufacturer, paid medical professionals $25.8 million in “fees and expenses” over a decade.

I think all doctors — who spend a decade of their life in training only to emerge with thousands of dollars in debt — would like to be similarly compensated for their expertise.

Yet, many of us forgo lucrative private practices or industry jobs to work at academic medical centers because we wish to pursue our original mission: To provide the best patient care possible.

Fulfilling this mission in today’s “sickcare” system means being more than a clinician. We become researchers, educators, advocates, mentors, consultants, and advisors. We do so because the system compels us to find other ways to provide quality health care, outside of clinic walls. These ways often include:

• Educating the public through media, social media, or community events.
• Training students, residents, and fellows on the latest medical knowledge.
• Advising industry innovators and entrepreneurs who seek our expertise.

Personally, I engaged in these activities because working 8-5 seeing 20 patients a day wasn’t enough. I wanted to help more people, more quickly. When I was faced with these opportunities, I was excited to say “yes” and never thought to ask for compensation because I didn’t want to seem ungrateful.

Eventually, I learned to ask for compensation.

And then I learned to decide my value.

The Reuters article reports that obesity medicine experts Drs. Lee Kaplan, Donna Ryan, Ania Jastreboff, and Jamy Ard were paid thousands of dollars in consulting fees over a decade. This industry-to-physician relationship should be celebrated because:

• Industries should consult experts in the field.
• These leaders have dedicated decades of their lives to understanding and solving the obesity epidemic.
• This collaboration has resulted in a therapeutic option that is changing lives. 

If there is anything to criticize, it should be:

• The expectation that medical expertise should be free.Wegovy’s manufacturer is worth $403 billion, and the experts are valued at less than 0.1% of that figure.
• The lack of context.
• Some celebrity doctors can earn $300,000 in just one consult. Other medical or surgical specialties are valued at 100 times more than obesity specialists. 
• The false dichotomy.
• Just because money is involved, it doesn’t mean the product is invalid.

Industry and physician relationships have long been examined. Such financial relationships are always disclosed (eg, at conferences, in publications). The Sunshine Act of 2010 and Open Payments provide the necessary transparency for people to decide for themselves whether there were financial incentives or potential conflicts of interest.

We should also take it a step further and ask ourselves: Do conflicts of interest require us to dismiss the end result? In other words, just because the pharmaceutical industry pays these doctors for their time and expertise, does that mean their life’s work is wrong, or that the drug isn’t effective?

In the case of obesity, Wegovy speaks for itself. Remember that the manufacturer stopped advertising. When a disease finally has a treatment, it does not need promoters or salespersons. Just speak to any person with obesity.

Ultimately, I see three main takeaways from Reuters’ reporting:

• The weight loss industry needs more obesity medicine experts. 
• We should value ourselves more.
• When people with resources work with people who have the commitment, knowledge, and experience, we can find a solution that saves lives. 

Dr. Tchang received $5525 in 2022 in consulting fees from Novo Nordisk. She plans to ask for more. She also disclosed ties with Gelesis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is first-line therapy for sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the major player in the SRBDs space, with a prevalence approaching 100% in adult men using current diagnostic criteria. Patients with OSA and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD) are diagnosed with OSA syndrome, and CPAP is prescribed. Primary care physicians and cardiologists are quick to refer patients with CVD to sleep docs to see whether CPAP can improve CVD-related outcomes.

What the Studies Show

There’s a problem though. CPAP doesn’t seem to improve CVD-related outcomes. In some cases, it’s even harmful. Let’s do a quick review. In 2005, the CANPAP study found CPAP didn’t improve a composite CVD outcome that included mortality. A post hoc analysis found that it actually increased mortality if central apneas weren’t eliminated. The post hoc analysis also found benefit when central apneas were eliminated, but for all-comers, CPAP didn’t improve outcomes. Strike one.

Enter adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV). If CANPAP showed that success depended on eliminating central apneas, why not use ASV for all patients with CVD and central apneas or Cheyne-Stokes respirations? ASV eliminates central apneas and Cheyne-Stokes. Well, that didn’t work either. The randomized, controlled SERVE-HF trial, published in 2015, showed that ASV increases all-cause and CVD-specific mortality. Oops. That’s two trials showing that CPAP and ASV can increase mortality in patients with heart failure. Strike two.

Alright. But that’s heart failure. What about hypertension or coronary artery disease (CAD)? Shouldn’t such patients be treated with CPAP to reduce CVD risk? After all, there’s all those surrogate outcomes data for CPAP — it improves vascular tone and lowers catecholamines and all that stuff. Doesn’t it lower blood pressure too? Surely CPAP benefits patients with CVD who don’t have heart failure, right?

Not really. The RICCADSA study, published in 2016, found that CPAP didn’t reduce a composite of CVD outcomes in patients with newly revascularized CAD. The SAVE trial published the same year had a similar design with similar results. CPAP did not improve CVD-related outcomes. Most recently, the ISAACC study was negative. That’s three negative randomized controlled trials in less than 5 years showing CPAP doesn’t affect CVD-related outcomes in high-risk populations with known disease. Strike three?

CPAP provides no benefit for CVD and possible harm when treating heart failure. Surely CPAP is useful for patients with hypertension. Let’s see. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) conducted meta-analyses for the guideline it produced recommending CPAP for patients with comorbid hypertension. They note that 24-hour blood pressure measurements are best correlated with outcomes. CPAP did lead to significant 24-hour blood pressure reduction, but guess how large it was? For systolic blood pressure, it was 1.5 mm Hg; for diastolic pressure, it was 1.6 mm Hg. That’s it.

How did the AASM summarize and interpret the above data in their 2019 guidelines for prescribing CPAP? Although covered in their detailed review, both heart failure and CVD are left out of their primary recommendations . They do provide a conditional recommendation for prescribing CPAP to patients with comorbid hypertension that states, “The majority of well-informed patients would choose the intervention over no treatment.” Really? If you were told that CPAP provides less reduction in blood pressure than dietary changes and/or medications, would you choose to wear it or take a pill once a day? Remember, you have to take the pill anyway to get your blood pressure to target unless your pressure is only 1.5-1.6 mm Hg above normal. Where does one find patients who are anxious to wear a mask to bed for minimal benefit and a 20% copay? I’ve yet to meet one.

As always, the pressure pushers are undeterred by inconvenient evidence. A secondary analysis of adherent patients in RICCADSA resorts to the “bait and switch” that’s propped up CPAP enthusiasts for decades: Compare adherent patients versus those who are not (or those who refuse treatment) to prove benefit. The flaws to this approach are obvious. First, performing a post hoc analysis that reintroduces all of the confounding that plagues existing CPAP data negates the benefits of randomization, fancy statistics notwithstanding. Second, it belies the reality that in well-controlled, well-conducted randomized trials where patients get far more support than those in the community (and sometimes are preselected for adherence), a majority simply won’t use CPAP . Excluding the nonadherent or comparing them with the adherent is the epitome of selection bias.

The editorial accompanying the ISAACC study is a tour de force in CPAP apologies. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) isn’t the right metric — this one’s invoked often. Never mind that the very premise that OSA causes CVD is from observational data based on the AHI. If you abandon the AHI, don’t you lose your justification for prospective trials targeting CVD with CPAP?

Even better, in an argument fit for a Twitter ban, the author suggests that patients in ISAACC, SAVE, and RICCADSA couldn’t benefit because they already have CVD. The very concept, refuted by decades of secondary prevention research in cardiology, implies that CPAP should be used for primary prevention. Only a sleep researcher could spin a negative study into an expansion of CPAP indications. Others in the AASM have made similar proposals.

Final Thoughts

The sleep field lacks unblinded realists capable of choosing wisely. A little therapeutic underconfidence is warranted. Diseases and therapies will always have champions. Prudence and restraint? Not so much. The AASM could summarize the CPAP literature in a single recommendation: “If your patient is sleepy, CPAP might help them feel better if their disease is moderate or severe.” All other indications are soft.

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

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He covers a  wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine .

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is first-line therapy for sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the major player in the SRBDs space, with a prevalence approaching 100% in adult men using current diagnostic criteria. Patients with OSA and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD) are diagnosed with OSA syndrome, and CPAP is prescribed. Primary care physicians and cardiologists are quick to refer patients with CVD to sleep docs to see whether CPAP can improve CVD-related outcomes.

What the Studies Show

There’s a problem though. CPAP doesn’t seem to improve CVD-related outcomes. In some cases, it’s even harmful. Let’s do a quick review. In 2005, the CANPAP study found CPAP didn’t improve a composite CVD outcome that included mortality. A post hoc analysis found that it actually increased mortality if central apneas weren’t eliminated. The post hoc analysis also found benefit when central apneas were eliminated, but for all-comers, CPAP didn’t improve outcomes. Strike one.

Enter adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV). If CANPAP showed that success depended on eliminating central apneas, why not use ASV for all patients with CVD and central apneas or Cheyne-Stokes respirations? ASV eliminates central apneas and Cheyne-Stokes. Well, that didn’t work either. The randomized, controlled SERVE-HF trial, published in 2015, showed that ASV increases all-cause and CVD-specific mortality. Oops. That’s two trials showing that CPAP and ASV can increase mortality in patients with heart failure. Strike two.

Alright. But that’s heart failure. What about hypertension or coronary artery disease (CAD)? Shouldn’t such patients be treated with CPAP to reduce CVD risk? After all, there’s all those surrogate outcomes data for CPAP — it improves vascular tone and lowers catecholamines and all that stuff. Doesn’t it lower blood pressure too? Surely CPAP benefits patients with CVD who don’t have heart failure, right?

Not really. The RICCADSA study, published in 2016, found that CPAP didn’t reduce a composite of CVD outcomes in patients with newly revascularized CAD. The SAVE trial published the same year had a similar design with similar results. CPAP did not improve CVD-related outcomes. Most recently, the ISAACC study was negative. That’s three negative randomized controlled trials in less than 5 years showing CPAP doesn’t affect CVD-related outcomes in high-risk populations with known disease. Strike three?

CPAP provides no benefit for CVD and possible harm when treating heart failure. Surely CPAP is useful for patients with hypertension. Let’s see. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) conducted meta-analyses for the guideline it produced recommending CPAP for patients with comorbid hypertension. They note that 24-hour blood pressure measurements are best correlated with outcomes. CPAP did lead to significant 24-hour blood pressure reduction, but guess how large it was? For systolic blood pressure, it was 1.5 mm Hg; for diastolic pressure, it was 1.6 mm Hg. That’s it.

How did the AASM summarize and interpret the above data in their 2019 guidelines for prescribing CPAP? Although covered in their detailed review, both heart failure and CVD are left out of their primary recommendations . They do provide a conditional recommendation for prescribing CPAP to patients with comorbid hypertension that states, “The majority of well-informed patients would choose the intervention over no treatment.” Really? If you were told that CPAP provides less reduction in blood pressure than dietary changes and/or medications, would you choose to wear it or take a pill once a day? Remember, you have to take the pill anyway to get your blood pressure to target unless your pressure is only 1.5-1.6 mm Hg above normal. Where does one find patients who are anxious to wear a mask to bed for minimal benefit and a 20% copay? I’ve yet to meet one.

As always, the pressure pushers are undeterred by inconvenient evidence. A secondary analysis of adherent patients in RICCADSA resorts to the “bait and switch” that’s propped up CPAP enthusiasts for decades: Compare adherent patients versus those who are not (or those who refuse treatment) to prove benefit. The flaws to this approach are obvious. First, performing a post hoc analysis that reintroduces all of the confounding that plagues existing CPAP data negates the benefits of randomization, fancy statistics notwithstanding. Second, it belies the reality that in well-controlled, well-conducted randomized trials where patients get far more support than those in the community (and sometimes are preselected for adherence), a majority simply won’t use CPAP . Excluding the nonadherent or comparing them with the adherent is the epitome of selection bias.

The editorial accompanying the ISAACC study is a tour de force in CPAP apologies. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) isn’t the right metric — this one’s invoked often. Never mind that the very premise that OSA causes CVD is from observational data based on the AHI. If you abandon the AHI, don’t you lose your justification for prospective trials targeting CVD with CPAP?

Even better, in an argument fit for a Twitter ban, the author suggests that patients in ISAACC, SAVE, and RICCADSA couldn’t benefit because they already have CVD. The very concept, refuted by decades of secondary prevention research in cardiology, implies that CPAP should be used for primary prevention. Only a sleep researcher could spin a negative study into an expansion of CPAP indications. Others in the AASM have made similar proposals.

Final Thoughts

The sleep field lacks unblinded realists capable of choosing wisely. A little therapeutic underconfidence is warranted. Diseases and therapies will always have champions. Prudence and restraint? Not so much. The AASM could summarize the CPAP literature in a single recommendation: “If your patient is sleepy, CPAP might help them feel better if their disease is moderate or severe.” All other indications are soft.

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

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He covers a  wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine .

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is first-line therapy for sleep-related breathing disorders (SRBDs). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is the major player in the SRBDs space, with a prevalence approaching 100% in adult men using current diagnostic criteria. Patients with OSA and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD) are diagnosed with OSA syndrome, and CPAP is prescribed. Primary care physicians and cardiologists are quick to refer patients with CVD to sleep docs to see whether CPAP can improve CVD-related outcomes.

What the Studies Show

There’s a problem though. CPAP doesn’t seem to improve CVD-related outcomes. In some cases, it’s even harmful. Let’s do a quick review. In 2005, the CANPAP study found CPAP didn’t improve a composite CVD outcome that included mortality. A post hoc analysis found that it actually increased mortality if central apneas weren’t eliminated. The post hoc analysis also found benefit when central apneas were eliminated, but for all-comers, CPAP didn’t improve outcomes. Strike one.

Enter adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV). If CANPAP showed that success depended on eliminating central apneas, why not use ASV for all patients with CVD and central apneas or Cheyne-Stokes respirations? ASV eliminates central apneas and Cheyne-Stokes. Well, that didn’t work either. The randomized, controlled SERVE-HF trial, published in 2015, showed that ASV increases all-cause and CVD-specific mortality. Oops. That’s two trials showing that CPAP and ASV can increase mortality in patients with heart failure. Strike two.

Alright. But that’s heart failure. What about hypertension or coronary artery disease (CAD)? Shouldn’t such patients be treated with CPAP to reduce CVD risk? After all, there’s all those surrogate outcomes data for CPAP — it improves vascular tone and lowers catecholamines and all that stuff. Doesn’t it lower blood pressure too? Surely CPAP benefits patients with CVD who don’t have heart failure, right?

Not really. The RICCADSA study, published in 2016, found that CPAP didn’t reduce a composite of CVD outcomes in patients with newly revascularized CAD. The SAVE trial published the same year had a similar design with similar results. CPAP did not improve CVD-related outcomes. Most recently, the ISAACC study was negative. That’s three negative randomized controlled trials in less than 5 years showing CPAP doesn’t affect CVD-related outcomes in high-risk populations with known disease. Strike three?

CPAP provides no benefit for CVD and possible harm when treating heart failure. Surely CPAP is useful for patients with hypertension. Let’s see. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) conducted meta-analyses for the guideline it produced recommending CPAP for patients with comorbid hypertension. They note that 24-hour blood pressure measurements are best correlated with outcomes. CPAP did lead to significant 24-hour blood pressure reduction, but guess how large it was? For systolic blood pressure, it was 1.5 mm Hg; for diastolic pressure, it was 1.6 mm Hg. That’s it.

How did the AASM summarize and interpret the above data in their 2019 guidelines for prescribing CPAP? Although covered in their detailed review, both heart failure and CVD are left out of their primary recommendations . They do provide a conditional recommendation for prescribing CPAP to patients with comorbid hypertension that states, “The majority of well-informed patients would choose the intervention over no treatment.” Really? If you were told that CPAP provides less reduction in blood pressure than dietary changes and/or medications, would you choose to wear it or take a pill once a day? Remember, you have to take the pill anyway to get your blood pressure to target unless your pressure is only 1.5-1.6 mm Hg above normal. Where does one find patients who are anxious to wear a mask to bed for minimal benefit and a 20% copay? I’ve yet to meet one.

As always, the pressure pushers are undeterred by inconvenient evidence. A secondary analysis of adherent patients in RICCADSA resorts to the “bait and switch” that’s propped up CPAP enthusiasts for decades: Compare adherent patients versus those who are not (or those who refuse treatment) to prove benefit. The flaws to this approach are obvious. First, performing a post hoc analysis that reintroduces all of the confounding that plagues existing CPAP data negates the benefits of randomization, fancy statistics notwithstanding. Second, it belies the reality that in well-controlled, well-conducted randomized trials where patients get far more support than those in the community (and sometimes are preselected for adherence), a majority simply won’t use CPAP . Excluding the nonadherent or comparing them with the adherent is the epitome of selection bias.

The editorial accompanying the ISAACC study is a tour de force in CPAP apologies. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) isn’t the right metric — this one’s invoked often. Never mind that the very premise that OSA causes CVD is from observational data based on the AHI. If you abandon the AHI, don’t you lose your justification for prospective trials targeting CVD with CPAP?

Even better, in an argument fit for a Twitter ban, the author suggests that patients in ISAACC, SAVE, and RICCADSA couldn’t benefit because they already have CVD. The very concept, refuted by decades of secondary prevention research in cardiology, implies that CPAP should be used for primary prevention. Only a sleep researcher could spin a negative study into an expansion of CPAP indications. Others in the AASM have made similar proposals.

Final Thoughts

The sleep field lacks unblinded realists capable of choosing wisely. A little therapeutic underconfidence is warranted. Diseases and therapies will always have champions. Prudence and restraint? Not so much. The AASM could summarize the CPAP literature in a single recommendation: “If your patient is sleepy, CPAP might help them feel better if their disease is moderate or severe.” All other indications are soft.

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

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He covers a  wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine .

As we begin to find our way in the new world of obesity management, questions continue to surface more quickly than answers. This isn’t surprising, as we are being asked to view obesity as a disease when for decades the general consensus has been that overweight people are simply will power deficient.

Are the new drugs as effective as we are told by the patients and physicians who have had some experience using and prescribing them? Will they continue to be effective in the very long run? Will their safety record hold up over time? And for those of us in pediatrics, what will be their role for children? As a group we tend to be cautious about drugs that haven’t been thoroughly tested in children. How many years will it take before we feel comfortable with obesity drugs? And, of course, we should be asking ourselves the same questions about bariatric surgery.

Fortunately, while the media spotlight has been focused on the treatment arm of our obesity strategy, there are still some folks looking at what has been up to now the discouraging prospects for prevention. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recently released a draft of its recommendations that includes evidence supporting the effectiveness of “intensive behavioral interventions” (defined as a minimum of 26 hours of counseling). In reviewing data from nearly 60 randomized controlled trials, which included more than 10,000 children, the task force found that when beginning as early as age 6, a package including healthy eating education, physical activity, and behavioral change support could be effective in helping the children achieve healthy weight and an improved quality of life. It should be noted that the USPSTF gave the intervention package only a B grade, which means that the agency found evidence of high certainty of a moderate benefit over an unspecified time period. Certainly, not a ringing endorsement.

While I think we must applaud the diligent efforts of the task force and its commitment to prevention, I fear that the strategy is too little too late. That being said, I am willing to accept the idea that targeting age 6 for intensive counseling may qualify for the better-late-than-never category. The task force acknowledges that procuring the resources given our already understaffed mental health clinics is going to be difficult and expensive. I would add that it will be so costly in time and money as to be unrealistic.

Based on my observations of thousands of children, the scaffolding of habits, diet, and preference for inactivity that underly obesity has already been laid by age 6. Are we prepared to shoulder our already overburdened school systems in an attempt to reconfigure this foundation of an obesogenic lifestyle? An effort on this scale after children have been sent off to first grade is doomed to failure.

A recent review of data reported by the CDC and reviewed in the journal Pediatrics reveals that about 2% of children receiving federal assistance from the WIC program are severely obese. It is probably safe to say that these preschoolers represent just the tip of a very concerning iceberg.

By waiting until age 6, we would increase the risk of further stigmatizing the obese child. What will he tell his peers when he is taken out of school or misses a playdate because he has to meet with his “obesity counselor”?

If we are going to take obesity prevention seriously and spend time and money in counseling, doesn’t it make more sense to invest this effort on the parents and the home situation when the child is still under their influence? We must be prepared to unwrap and employ an “intensive behavioral package” the first time we see evidence that the child’s growth chart is heading in an unhealthy direction.

This won’t always be easy. I can recall seeing a 4-year-old whose weight had risen dramatically from her previous curve in the year since her 3-year checkup. The answer became obvious when I discovered that her grandmother, for whom baking was a passion, had taken over as her daycare provider. Arriving at a solution that kept the family on speaking terms took some tact, but it was one of my rare successes in obesity prevention. And, it worked because of early intervention.

Thank you USPSTF, but 6 years is too late.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

As we begin to find our way in the new world of obesity management, questions continue to surface more quickly than answers. This isn’t surprising, as we are being asked to view obesity as a disease when for decades the general consensus has been that overweight people are simply will power deficient.

Are the new drugs as effective as we are told by the patients and physicians who have had some experience using and prescribing them? Will they continue to be effective in the very long run? Will their safety record hold up over time? And for those of us in pediatrics, what will be their role for children? As a group we tend to be cautious about drugs that haven’t been thoroughly tested in children. How many years will it take before we feel comfortable with obesity drugs? And, of course, we should be asking ourselves the same questions about bariatric surgery.

Fortunately, while the media spotlight has been focused on the treatment arm of our obesity strategy, there are still some folks looking at what has been up to now the discouraging prospects for prevention. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recently released a draft of its recommendations that includes evidence supporting the effectiveness of “intensive behavioral interventions” (defined as a minimum of 26 hours of counseling). In reviewing data from nearly 60 randomized controlled trials, which included more than 10,000 children, the task force found that when beginning as early as age 6, a package including healthy eating education, physical activity, and behavioral change support could be effective in helping the children achieve healthy weight and an improved quality of life. It should be noted that the USPSTF gave the intervention package only a B grade, which means that the agency found evidence of high certainty of a moderate benefit over an unspecified time period. Certainly, not a ringing endorsement.

While I think we must applaud the diligent efforts of the task force and its commitment to prevention, I fear that the strategy is too little too late. That being said, I am willing to accept the idea that targeting age 6 for intensive counseling may qualify for the better-late-than-never category. The task force acknowledges that procuring the resources given our already understaffed mental health clinics is going to be difficult and expensive. I would add that it will be so costly in time and money as to be unrealistic.

Based on my observations of thousands of children, the scaffolding of habits, diet, and preference for inactivity that underly obesity has already been laid by age 6. Are we prepared to shoulder our already overburdened school systems in an attempt to reconfigure this foundation of an obesogenic lifestyle? An effort on this scale after children have been sent off to first grade is doomed to failure.

A recent review of data reported by the CDC and reviewed in the journal Pediatrics reveals that about 2% of children receiving federal assistance from the WIC program are severely obese. It is probably safe to say that these preschoolers represent just the tip of a very concerning iceberg.

By waiting until age 6, we would increase the risk of further stigmatizing the obese child. What will he tell his peers when he is taken out of school or misses a playdate because he has to meet with his “obesity counselor”?

If we are going to take obesity prevention seriously and spend time and money in counseling, doesn’t it make more sense to invest this effort on the parents and the home situation when the child is still under their influence? We must be prepared to unwrap and employ an “intensive behavioral package” the first time we see evidence that the child’s growth chart is heading in an unhealthy direction.

This won’t always be easy. I can recall seeing a 4-year-old whose weight had risen dramatically from her previous curve in the year since her 3-year checkup. The answer became obvious when I discovered that her grandmother, for whom baking was a passion, had taken over as her daycare provider. Arriving at a solution that kept the family on speaking terms took some tact, but it was one of my rare successes in obesity prevention. And, it worked because of early intervention.

Thank you USPSTF, but 6 years is too late.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

As we begin to find our way in the new world of obesity management, questions continue to surface more quickly than answers. This isn’t surprising, as we are being asked to view obesity as a disease when for decades the general consensus has been that overweight people are simply will power deficient.

Are the new drugs as effective as we are told by the patients and physicians who have had some experience using and prescribing them? Will they continue to be effective in the very long run? Will their safety record hold up over time? And for those of us in pediatrics, what will be their role for children? As a group we tend to be cautious about drugs that haven’t been thoroughly tested in children. How many years will it take before we feel comfortable with obesity drugs? And, of course, we should be asking ourselves the same questions about bariatric surgery.

Fortunately, while the media spotlight has been focused on the treatment arm of our obesity strategy, there are still some folks looking at what has been up to now the discouraging prospects for prevention. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recently released a draft of its recommendations that includes evidence supporting the effectiveness of “intensive behavioral interventions” (defined as a minimum of 26 hours of counseling). In reviewing data from nearly 60 randomized controlled trials, which included more than 10,000 children, the task force found that when beginning as early as age 6, a package including healthy eating education, physical activity, and behavioral change support could be effective in helping the children achieve healthy weight and an improved quality of life. It should be noted that the USPSTF gave the intervention package only a B grade, which means that the agency found evidence of high certainty of a moderate benefit over an unspecified time period. Certainly, not a ringing endorsement.

While I think we must applaud the diligent efforts of the task force and its commitment to prevention, I fear that the strategy is too little too late. That being said, I am willing to accept the idea that targeting age 6 for intensive counseling may qualify for the better-late-than-never category. The task force acknowledges that procuring the resources given our already understaffed mental health clinics is going to be difficult and expensive. I would add that it will be so costly in time and money as to be unrealistic.

Based on my observations of thousands of children, the scaffolding of habits, diet, and preference for inactivity that underly obesity has already been laid by age 6. Are we prepared to shoulder our already overburdened school systems in an attempt to reconfigure this foundation of an obesogenic lifestyle? An effort on this scale after children have been sent off to first grade is doomed to failure.

A recent review of data reported by the CDC and reviewed in the journal Pediatrics reveals that about 2% of children receiving federal assistance from the WIC program are severely obese. It is probably safe to say that these preschoolers represent just the tip of a very concerning iceberg.

By waiting until age 6, we would increase the risk of further stigmatizing the obese child. What will he tell his peers when he is taken out of school or misses a playdate because he has to meet with his “obesity counselor”?

If we are going to take obesity prevention seriously and spend time and money in counseling, doesn’t it make more sense to invest this effort on the parents and the home situation when the child is still under their influence? We must be prepared to unwrap and employ an “intensive behavioral package” the first time we see evidence that the child’s growth chart is heading in an unhealthy direction.

This won’t always be easy. I can recall seeing a 4-year-old whose weight had risen dramatically from her previous curve in the year since her 3-year checkup. The answer became obvious when I discovered that her grandmother, for whom baking was a passion, had taken over as her daycare provider. Arriving at a solution that kept the family on speaking terms took some tact, but it was one of my rare successes in obesity prevention. And, it worked because of early intervention.

Thank you USPSTF, but 6 years is too late.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

You’re familiar with DIY and DUI, but what associations do the initials DEI trigger in your thought processor? Your college is probably influenced by it. So is your medical school, as are many of the businesses whose advertisements bombard you on television and the internet. Your professional association is definitely involved with it.

In the words of one newspaper columnist, DEI is an “ideological framework” whose most recognizable buzz words are “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), DEI has taken the form of a hiring philosophy that accepts and respects its responsibility to create a workplace “where each person can fully contribute to the shared mission without discrimination or intimidation and each person is respected, supported, and provided the equal opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression age, veteran status, immigration status, or disability.”.

As an organization representing its members, the AAP has issued a statement: “Celebrating the diversity of children and families and promoting nurturing, inclusive environments means actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias and discrimination” Further, the AAP says it is committed to using policy, advocacy, and education to encourage inclusivity and cultural effectiveness for all.”. Included in its recommendations to fulfill this commitment are efforts to diversify the pediatric workforce and eliminate race-based medicine.

For the AAP, its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to be a good fit. The first line of its mission statement — “to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults” — is well focused and one that its members can agree upon. However, we are beginning to see and hear that on some college and university campuses DEI has worn out its welcome.

In academia, the decision to include a broad mix of students and faculty with diverse backgrounds and at the same time provide opportunities equitably has hit some serious bumps in the road. It’s unclear how much the chaos in the Middle East is to blame, However, for several years there have been unfortunate campus incidents when the invitation of controversial guest speakers has laid bare the widely different interpretations of exactly what “free speech” means.

From its hazy inception, DEI has been missing one key ingredient — commonality. If we are going to actively seek to include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, encourage them to celebrate their diversity, and offer them equitable opportunities, then at the same time we must make it clear that our overriding goal is to seek and encourage the civil discussion of what we all have in common. Neglecting this additional step of promoting commonality is a grave mistake.

One mustn’t be surprised that a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds will have differing opinions. Finding common ground will predictably be a challenge, but it can be done. It requires compromise and a commitment to civil discussion. Regrettably, DEI as a framework places so much emphasis on the individual and diversity that the critical concept of commonality has been lost. Ironically, true inclusion and equity can’t occur without a reverence for commonality.

The AAP has done a good job of folding DEI into fulfilling the first sentence of its mission statement. However, it must not lose sight of the critical ingredient of commonality as it seeks to “support the professional needs of its members” (the second sentence of its mission). Despite a general agreement on the goal of providing care for all children, there are differences of opinion among its members when it comes to some of the details. The confusing topic of gender-affirmative care comes to mind. I am confident that as a group of thoughtful professionals, even in the face of wide differences, we can see the way to civil and productive discussions in the search for commonality.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

You’re familiar with DIY and DUI, but what associations do the initials DEI trigger in your thought processor? Your college is probably influenced by it. So is your medical school, as are many of the businesses whose advertisements bombard you on television and the internet. Your professional association is definitely involved with it.

In the words of one newspaper columnist, DEI is an “ideological framework” whose most recognizable buzz words are “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), DEI has taken the form of a hiring philosophy that accepts and respects its responsibility to create a workplace “where each person can fully contribute to the shared mission without discrimination or intimidation and each person is respected, supported, and provided the equal opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression age, veteran status, immigration status, or disability.”.

As an organization representing its members, the AAP has issued a statement: “Celebrating the diversity of children and families and promoting nurturing, inclusive environments means actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias and discrimination” Further, the AAP says it is committed to using policy, advocacy, and education to encourage inclusivity and cultural effectiveness for all.”. Included in its recommendations to fulfill this commitment are efforts to diversify the pediatric workforce and eliminate race-based medicine.

For the AAP, its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to be a good fit. The first line of its mission statement — “to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults” — is well focused and one that its members can agree upon. However, we are beginning to see and hear that on some college and university campuses DEI has worn out its welcome.

In academia, the decision to include a broad mix of students and faculty with diverse backgrounds and at the same time provide opportunities equitably has hit some serious bumps in the road. It’s unclear how much the chaos in the Middle East is to blame, However, for several years there have been unfortunate campus incidents when the invitation of controversial guest speakers has laid bare the widely different interpretations of exactly what “free speech” means.

From its hazy inception, DEI has been missing one key ingredient — commonality. If we are going to actively seek to include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, encourage them to celebrate their diversity, and offer them equitable opportunities, then at the same time we must make it clear that our overriding goal is to seek and encourage the civil discussion of what we all have in common. Neglecting this additional step of promoting commonality is a grave mistake.

One mustn’t be surprised that a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds will have differing opinions. Finding common ground will predictably be a challenge, but it can be done. It requires compromise and a commitment to civil discussion. Regrettably, DEI as a framework places so much emphasis on the individual and diversity that the critical concept of commonality has been lost. Ironically, true inclusion and equity can’t occur without a reverence for commonality.

The AAP has done a good job of folding DEI into fulfilling the first sentence of its mission statement. However, it must not lose sight of the critical ingredient of commonality as it seeks to “support the professional needs of its members” (the second sentence of its mission). Despite a general agreement on the goal of providing care for all children, there are differences of opinion among its members when it comes to some of the details. The confusing topic of gender-affirmative care comes to mind. I am confident that as a group of thoughtful professionals, even in the face of wide differences, we can see the way to civil and productive discussions in the search for commonality.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

You’re familiar with DIY and DUI, but what associations do the initials DEI trigger in your thought processor? Your college is probably influenced by it. So is your medical school, as are many of the businesses whose advertisements bombard you on television and the internet. Your professional association is definitely involved with it.

In the words of one newspaper columnist, DEI is an “ideological framework” whose most recognizable buzz words are “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion.” In the case of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), DEI has taken the form of a hiring philosophy that accepts and respects its responsibility to create a workplace “where each person can fully contribute to the shared mission without discrimination or intimidation and each person is respected, supported, and provided the equal opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry, national origin, religion, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression age, veteran status, immigration status, or disability.”.

As an organization representing its members, the AAP has issued a statement: “Celebrating the diversity of children and families and promoting nurturing, inclusive environments means actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias and discrimination” Further, the AAP says it is committed to using policy, advocacy, and education to encourage inclusivity and cultural effectiveness for all.”. Included in its recommendations to fulfill this commitment are efforts to diversify the pediatric workforce and eliminate race-based medicine.

For the AAP, its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion seems to be a good fit. The first line of its mission statement — “to attain optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults” — is well focused and one that its members can agree upon. However, we are beginning to see and hear that on some college and university campuses DEI has worn out its welcome.

In academia, the decision to include a broad mix of students and faculty with diverse backgrounds and at the same time provide opportunities equitably has hit some serious bumps in the road. It’s unclear how much the chaos in the Middle East is to blame, However, for several years there have been unfortunate campus incidents when the invitation of controversial guest speakers has laid bare the widely different interpretations of exactly what “free speech” means.

From its hazy inception, DEI has been missing one key ingredient — commonality. If we are going to actively seek to include individuals from a variety of backgrounds, encourage them to celebrate their diversity, and offer them equitable opportunities, then at the same time we must make it clear that our overriding goal is to seek and encourage the civil discussion of what we all have in common. Neglecting this additional step of promoting commonality is a grave mistake.

One mustn’t be surprised that a group of individuals from diverse backgrounds will have differing opinions. Finding common ground will predictably be a challenge, but it can be done. It requires compromise and a commitment to civil discussion. Regrettably, DEI as a framework places so much emphasis on the individual and diversity that the critical concept of commonality has been lost. Ironically, true inclusion and equity can’t occur without a reverence for commonality.

The AAP has done a good job of folding DEI into fulfilling the first sentence of its mission statement. However, it must not lose sight of the critical ingredient of commonality as it seeks to “support the professional needs of its members” (the second sentence of its mission). Despite a general agreement on the goal of providing care for all children, there are differences of opinion among its members when it comes to some of the details. The confusing topic of gender-affirmative care comes to mind. I am confident that as a group of thoughtful professionals, even in the face of wide differences, we can see the way to civil and productive discussions in the search for commonality.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In the last 3 months I’ve had an odd uptick in calls for foot-drop. Some of them said they’d seen other neurologists and were hoping I could help them, others that they wanted to see a specialist in foot-drop. Most called in, a few even showed up at the office wanting to be seen that day.

Now, I have nothing against seeing patients with foot-drop. It’s a relatively common issue in my field. But I’ve never claimed to be a “specialist” in foot-drop. I don’t even do my own EMG/NCVs anymore, except for the occasional carpal tunnel syndrome case.

So where were all these people coming from?

All of them had previously seen good neurologists, had the correct work-up, diagnoses, and treatment, but just hadn’t had the outcome they wanted. Now they were showing up at my little office, telling my staff that I was their last hope.

All of them had the common thread that they weren’t sent by my regular referral base. Instead, they found me on “the Internet.” Of course, none remembered where. This isn’t easy, as there are hundreds of physician listing and review sites out there. But, because of the number of calls, and the abuse that my staff and I were getting when people found out I wasn’t some magical foot-drop guru, I decided to try to find out.

After a few days of searching in my spare time, I finally had it. A site called MediFind lists me as being “advanced” in treating foot-drop, to the extent that it’s at the top of my “Areas of Expertise.” The site also says I handle “Autosomal Dominant Partial Epilepsy with Auditory Features” (no, I don’t. Try the epilepsy centers in town), “Familial Neurocardiogenic Syncope” (no), and narcolepsy (definitely not, try a sleep specialist).

I have no affiliation with MediFind. In fact, I’d never heard of them until I began tracking down this issue. How they came to have such incorrect information about me I don’t know, perhaps pulled from insurance billing data, or patient reviews, or a Magic 8 Ball.

But the foot-drop issue had, oddly, become a problem. My staff was having to tell people who called in with it that I wanted to see their previous neurology records so I didn’t waste their time. People being told I wasn’t some Ivory Tower foot-dropologist often became abusive and nasty, something I won’t tolerate (5 years ago this was rarely a problem, now it’s frighteningly common). People who made it as far as seeing me (a few when this began) were livid when I looked through their records and said I had nothing to offer that their previous neurologist(s) hadn’t done. I was accused of false advertising, misrepresenting myself, etc, even though I had nothing to do with why MediFind put that up.

So I wrote to MediFind, using the email info on their page. I told them I didn’t specialize in foot-drop, and didn’t even handle several of the other conditions on their page. I asked them to take those things out, or (preferably) simply delete my listing from their site.

I got an automated reply thanking me for writing to them and saying their team would look into it. That was almost a month ago. I haven’t heard back, and the listing is, as of this writing, still up.

Like the “once in, never out” issue with a wrong diagnosis in the EMR, erroneous professional information on the Internet probably isn’t going to go away. The computer algorithms that create such listings have no interest in correcting their errors, and so the frustration for these patients, my staff, and myself, is going to continue for a while. It’s a waste of time for them and us.

And, as this point, I doubt there’s much I can do about it.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the last 3 months I’ve had an odd uptick in calls for foot-drop. Some of them said they’d seen other neurologists and were hoping I could help them, others that they wanted to see a specialist in foot-drop. Most called in, a few even showed up at the office wanting to be seen that day.

Now, I have nothing against seeing patients with foot-drop. It’s a relatively common issue in my field. But I’ve never claimed to be a “specialist” in foot-drop. I don’t even do my own EMG/NCVs anymore, except for the occasional carpal tunnel syndrome case.

So where were all these people coming from?

All of them had previously seen good neurologists, had the correct work-up, diagnoses, and treatment, but just hadn’t had the outcome they wanted. Now they were showing up at my little office, telling my staff that I was their last hope.

All of them had the common thread that they weren’t sent by my regular referral base. Instead, they found me on “the Internet.” Of course, none remembered where. This isn’t easy, as there are hundreds of physician listing and review sites out there. But, because of the number of calls, and the abuse that my staff and I were getting when people found out I wasn’t some magical foot-drop guru, I decided to try to find out.

After a few days of searching in my spare time, I finally had it. A site called MediFind lists me as being “advanced” in treating foot-drop, to the extent that it’s at the top of my “Areas of Expertise.” The site also says I handle “Autosomal Dominant Partial Epilepsy with Auditory Features” (no, I don’t. Try the epilepsy centers in town), “Familial Neurocardiogenic Syncope” (no), and narcolepsy (definitely not, try a sleep specialist).

I have no affiliation with MediFind. In fact, I’d never heard of them until I began tracking down this issue. How they came to have such incorrect information about me I don’t know, perhaps pulled from insurance billing data, or patient reviews, or a Magic 8 Ball.

But the foot-drop issue had, oddly, become a problem. My staff was having to tell people who called in with it that I wanted to see their previous neurology records so I didn’t waste their time. People being told I wasn’t some Ivory Tower foot-dropologist often became abusive and nasty, something I won’t tolerate (5 years ago this was rarely a problem, now it’s frighteningly common). People who made it as far as seeing me (a few when this began) were livid when I looked through their records and said I had nothing to offer that their previous neurologist(s) hadn’t done. I was accused of false advertising, misrepresenting myself, etc, even though I had nothing to do with why MediFind put that up.

So I wrote to MediFind, using the email info on their page. I told them I didn’t specialize in foot-drop, and didn’t even handle several of the other conditions on their page. I asked them to take those things out, or (preferably) simply delete my listing from their site.

I got an automated reply thanking me for writing to them and saying their team would look into it. That was almost a month ago. I haven’t heard back, and the listing is, as of this writing, still up.

Like the “once in, never out” issue with a wrong diagnosis in the EMR, erroneous professional information on the Internet probably isn’t going to go away. The computer algorithms that create such listings have no interest in correcting their errors, and so the frustration for these patients, my staff, and myself, is going to continue for a while. It’s a waste of time for them and us.

And, as this point, I doubt there’s much I can do about it.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the last 3 months I’ve had an odd uptick in calls for foot-drop. Some of them said they’d seen other neurologists and were hoping I could help them, others that they wanted to see a specialist in foot-drop. Most called in, a few even showed up at the office wanting to be seen that day.

Now, I have nothing against seeing patients with foot-drop. It’s a relatively common issue in my field. But I’ve never claimed to be a “specialist” in foot-drop. I don’t even do my own EMG/NCVs anymore, except for the occasional carpal tunnel syndrome case.

So where were all these people coming from?

All of them had previously seen good neurologists, had the correct work-up, diagnoses, and treatment, but just hadn’t had the outcome they wanted. Now they were showing up at my little office, telling my staff that I was their last hope.

All of them had the common thread that they weren’t sent by my regular referral base. Instead, they found me on “the Internet.” Of course, none remembered where. This isn’t easy, as there are hundreds of physician listing and review sites out there. But, because of the number of calls, and the abuse that my staff and I were getting when people found out I wasn’t some magical foot-drop guru, I decided to try to find out.

After a few days of searching in my spare time, I finally had it. A site called MediFind lists me as being “advanced” in treating foot-drop, to the extent that it’s at the top of my “Areas of Expertise.” The site also says I handle “Autosomal Dominant Partial Epilepsy with Auditory Features” (no, I don’t. Try the epilepsy centers in town), “Familial Neurocardiogenic Syncope” (no), and narcolepsy (definitely not, try a sleep specialist).

I have no affiliation with MediFind. In fact, I’d never heard of them until I began tracking down this issue. How they came to have such incorrect information about me I don’t know, perhaps pulled from insurance billing data, or patient reviews, or a Magic 8 Ball.

But the foot-drop issue had, oddly, become a problem. My staff was having to tell people who called in with it that I wanted to see their previous neurology records so I didn’t waste their time. People being told I wasn’t some Ivory Tower foot-dropologist often became abusive and nasty, something I won’t tolerate (5 years ago this was rarely a problem, now it’s frighteningly common). People who made it as far as seeing me (a few when this began) were livid when I looked through their records and said I had nothing to offer that their previous neurologist(s) hadn’t done. I was accused of false advertising, misrepresenting myself, etc, even though I had nothing to do with why MediFind put that up.

So I wrote to MediFind, using the email info on their page. I told them I didn’t specialize in foot-drop, and didn’t even handle several of the other conditions on their page. I asked them to take those things out, or (preferably) simply delete my listing from their site.

I got an automated reply thanking me for writing to them and saying their team would look into it. That was almost a month ago. I haven’t heard back, and the listing is, as of this writing, still up.

Like the “once in, never out” issue with a wrong diagnosis in the EMR, erroneous professional information on the Internet probably isn’t going to go away. The computer algorithms that create such listings have no interest in correcting their errors, and so the frustration for these patients, my staff, and myself, is going to continue for a while. It’s a waste of time for them and us.

And, as this point, I doubt there’s much I can do about it.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The idea of the use of probiotics has a history going back more than a century when Russian scientist, Elie Metchnikoff, theorized that lactic acid bacteria may offer health benefits as well as promote longevity. In the early 1900s, intestinal disorders were frequently treated with nonpathogenic bacteria to replace gut microbes.

Today, the market is flooded with products from foods to prescription medications containing probiotics that extol their health benefits. It has been estimated that the global market for probiotics is more than $32 billion dollars annually and is expected to increase 8% per year.

As family doctors, patients come to us with many questions about the use of probiotics. Look online or on store shelves — there are so many types, doses, and brands of probiotics it is hard to decipher which are worth using. We older doctors never received much education about them.

Earlier this year, the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) developed recommendations around the use of probiotics and defined them as “live microbes that have been shown in controlled human studies to impart a health benefit.” Their recommendation is to use the strains that have been shown to be beneficial for the condition they claim to help and have been shown to do so in controlled studies. The dosage advised should be that shown to be useful in studies.

While this is an easy statement to make, it is much less so in clinical practice. The guidelines do a good job breaking down the conditions they help and the strains that have shown to be beneficial for specific conditions.

There have been claims that probiotics have been shown to be beneficial in colorectal cancer. While there have been some studies to show that they can improve markers associated with colorectal cancer, there are no data that probiotics actually do much in terms of prevention. Eating a healthy diet is more helpful here.

One area where probiotics have been shown to be beneficial is in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. This makes sense since we know that antibiotics can kill the “good bacteria” lining the gut wall and probiotics work to replace them. Other conditions where these agents have been shown to be beneficial include radiation-induced diarrhea, acute diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, and colic in breast-fed infants.

The guideline contains good evidence of where and which types of probiotics are useful and it is good to look at the charts in the paper to see the specific strains recommended. It also contains an extensive reference section, and as primary care physicians, it is imperative that we educate ourselves on these agents.

While probiotics are typically sold as supplements, we should not dismiss them summarily. It is easy to do that when supplemental products are marketed and sold unethically with no clinical evidence of benefit. We need to remember that just because something is a supplement doesn’t necessarily mean that it was not studied.

Family physicians need to be able to educate their patients and answer their questions. When we don’t have the answers, we need to find them. Any time our patient doesn’t get good information from us, they will probably go to the Internet and get bad advice from someone else.

There is much ongoing research about the gut microbiome and the bacteria that can be found in the gut. Researchers are looking into the “gut-brain” axis but there is not much good evidence of this link yet. There is no evidence that probiotics can cure Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinsonism. The future may reveal different stories, but for now, we need to follow the evidence we have available.

There are many outlandish claims about what the gut microbiome is responsible for and can do for health. It is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction when anyone brings it up in conversation. We need to arm ourselves with the evidence. We are stewards of the health and safety of our patients.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

The idea of the use of probiotics has a history going back more than a century when Russian scientist, Elie Metchnikoff, theorized that lactic acid bacteria may offer health benefits as well as promote longevity. In the early 1900s, intestinal disorders were frequently treated with nonpathogenic bacteria to replace gut microbes.

Today, the market is flooded with products from foods to prescription medications containing probiotics that extol their health benefits. It has been estimated that the global market for probiotics is more than $32 billion dollars annually and is expected to increase 8% per year.

As family doctors, patients come to us with many questions about the use of probiotics. Look online or on store shelves — there are so many types, doses, and brands of probiotics it is hard to decipher which are worth using. We older doctors never received much education about them.

Earlier this year, the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) developed recommendations around the use of probiotics and defined them as “live microbes that have been shown in controlled human studies to impart a health benefit.” Their recommendation is to use the strains that have been shown to be beneficial for the condition they claim to help and have been shown to do so in controlled studies. The dosage advised should be that shown to be useful in studies.

While this is an easy statement to make, it is much less so in clinical practice. The guidelines do a good job breaking down the conditions they help and the strains that have shown to be beneficial for specific conditions.

There have been claims that probiotics have been shown to be beneficial in colorectal cancer. While there have been some studies to show that they can improve markers associated with colorectal cancer, there are no data that probiotics actually do much in terms of prevention. Eating a healthy diet is more helpful here.

One area where probiotics have been shown to be beneficial is in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. This makes sense since we know that antibiotics can kill the “good bacteria” lining the gut wall and probiotics work to replace them. Other conditions where these agents have been shown to be beneficial include radiation-induced diarrhea, acute diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, and colic in breast-fed infants.

The guideline contains good evidence of where and which types of probiotics are useful and it is good to look at the charts in the paper to see the specific strains recommended. It also contains an extensive reference section, and as primary care physicians, it is imperative that we educate ourselves on these agents.

While probiotics are typically sold as supplements, we should not dismiss them summarily. It is easy to do that when supplemental products are marketed and sold unethically with no clinical evidence of benefit. We need to remember that just because something is a supplement doesn’t necessarily mean that it was not studied.

Family physicians need to be able to educate their patients and answer their questions. When we don’t have the answers, we need to find them. Any time our patient doesn’t get good information from us, they will probably go to the Internet and get bad advice from someone else.

There is much ongoing research about the gut microbiome and the bacteria that can be found in the gut. Researchers are looking into the “gut-brain” axis but there is not much good evidence of this link yet. There is no evidence that probiotics can cure Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinsonism. The future may reveal different stories, but for now, we need to follow the evidence we have available.

There are many outlandish claims about what the gut microbiome is responsible for and can do for health. It is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction when anyone brings it up in conversation. We need to arm ourselves with the evidence. We are stewards of the health and safety of our patients.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

The idea of the use of probiotics has a history going back more than a century when Russian scientist, Elie Metchnikoff, theorized that lactic acid bacteria may offer health benefits as well as promote longevity. In the early 1900s, intestinal disorders were frequently treated with nonpathogenic bacteria to replace gut microbes.

Today, the market is flooded with products from foods to prescription medications containing probiotics that extol their health benefits. It has been estimated that the global market for probiotics is more than $32 billion dollars annually and is expected to increase 8% per year.

As family doctors, patients come to us with many questions about the use of probiotics. Look online or on store shelves — there are so many types, doses, and brands of probiotics it is hard to decipher which are worth using. We older doctors never received much education about them.

Earlier this year, the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) developed recommendations around the use of probiotics and defined them as “live microbes that have been shown in controlled human studies to impart a health benefit.” Their recommendation is to use the strains that have been shown to be beneficial for the condition they claim to help and have been shown to do so in controlled studies. The dosage advised should be that shown to be useful in studies.

While this is an easy statement to make, it is much less so in clinical practice. The guidelines do a good job breaking down the conditions they help and the strains that have shown to be beneficial for specific conditions.

There have been claims that probiotics have been shown to be beneficial in colorectal cancer. While there have been some studies to show that they can improve markers associated with colorectal cancer, there are no data that probiotics actually do much in terms of prevention. Eating a healthy diet is more helpful here.

One area where probiotics have been shown to be beneficial is in the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. This makes sense since we know that antibiotics can kill the “good bacteria” lining the gut wall and probiotics work to replace them. Other conditions where these agents have been shown to be beneficial include radiation-induced diarrhea, acute diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, and colic in breast-fed infants.

The guideline contains good evidence of where and which types of probiotics are useful and it is good to look at the charts in the paper to see the specific strains recommended. It also contains an extensive reference section, and as primary care physicians, it is imperative that we educate ourselves on these agents.

While probiotics are typically sold as supplements, we should not dismiss them summarily. It is easy to do that when supplemental products are marketed and sold unethically with no clinical evidence of benefit. We need to remember that just because something is a supplement doesn’t necessarily mean that it was not studied.

Family physicians need to be able to educate their patients and answer their questions. When we don’t have the answers, we need to find them. Any time our patient doesn’t get good information from us, they will probably go to the Internet and get bad advice from someone else.

There is much ongoing research about the gut microbiome and the bacteria that can be found in the gut. Researchers are looking into the “gut-brain” axis but there is not much good evidence of this link yet. There is no evidence that probiotics can cure Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinsonism. The future may reveal different stories, but for now, we need to follow the evidence we have available.

There are many outlandish claims about what the gut microbiome is responsible for and can do for health. It is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction when anyone brings it up in conversation. We need to arm ourselves with the evidence. We are stewards of the health and safety of our patients.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.

We love psychiatry. We love the idea that someone can come to receive care from a physician to alleviate psychological suffering.

Some people experience such severe anguish that they are unable to relate to others. Some are so despondent that they are unable to make decisions. Some are so distressed that their thoughts become inconsistent with reality. We want all those people, and many more, to have access to effective psychiatric care. However, there are reasonable expectations that one should be able to have that a treatment will help, and that appropriate informed consent is given.

One recent article reminded us of this in a particularly poignant way.

The study in question is a recent publication looking at the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers.¹ At face value, we would have certainly considered this to be a benevolent and well-meaning intervention. Anyone who has been a teenager or has talked to one, is aware of the emotional instability punctuated by episodes of intense anxiety or irritability. It is age appropriate for a teenager to question and explore their identity. Teenagers are notoriously impulsive with a deep desire for validating interpersonal relationships. One could continue to list the symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and find a lot of similarity with the condition of transitioning from a child to an adult.

It is thus common sense to consider applying the most established therapy for BPD, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), to teenagers. The basics of DBT would seem to be helpful to anyone but appear particularly appropriate to this population. Mindfulness, the practice of paying attention to your present experience, allows one to realize that they are trapped in past or hypothetical future moments. Emotional regulation provides the tools that offer a frame for our feelings and involves recognizing feelings and understanding what they mean. Interpersonal work allows one to recognize and adapt to the feelings of others, while learning how to have a healthy voice with others. Distress tolerance is the exercise of learning to experience and contain our feelings.

The study looked at about 1,000 young adolescents, around 13 years old across high schools in Sydney, Australia: 598 adolescents were allocated to the intervention, and 566 to the control. The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions of DBT lasting about 50 minutes. The results were “contrary to predictions.” Participants who received DBT “reported significantly increased total difficulties,” and “significant increases in depression and anxiety.” The effects were worse in males yet significant in both genders. The study concludes with “a reminder that present enthusiasm for universal dissemination of short-term DBT-based group skills training within schools, specifically in early adolescence, is ahead of the research evidence.”

We can’t help but wonder why the outcomes of the study were this way; here are some ideas:

• Society has natural ways of developing interpersonal skills, emotional regulation, and the ability to appreciate the present. Interpersonal skills are consistently fostered and tested in schools. Navigating high school parties, the process of organizing them, and getting invited to them requires significant social dexterity. Rejection from romantic interest, alienation from peers, rewards for accomplishment, and acceptance by other peers are some of the daily emotional obstacles that teenagers face. Being constantly taught by older individuals and scolded by parents is its own course in mindfulness. Those are few of the many natural processes of interpersonal growth that formalized therapy may impede.

• The universal discussion of psychological terms and psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness, but also normalize and possibly even promote it. While punishing or stigmatizing a child for having mental illness is obviously unacceptable and cruel, we do wonder if the compulsory psychotherapy may provide negative effects. Psychotherapies, especially manualized ones, were developed to alleviate mental suffering. It seems possible that this format normalizes pathology.

In 1961, Erving Goffman described the concept of sane people appearing insane in an asylum as “mortification.” In 2023, we have much improved, but have we done something to internalize patterns of suffering and alienation rather than dispel them? They are given forms that explain what the feeling of depression is when they may have never considered it. They are given tools to handle distress, when distress may not be present.

• Many human beings live on a fairly tight rope of suppression and the less adaptive repression. Suppression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to put distressing thoughts out of conscious awareness. After a difficult breakup a teenager may ask some friends to go out and watch a movie, making efforts to put negative feelings out of conscious awareness until there is an opportunity to cope adaptively with those stressors.

Repression is the defense mechanism by which individuals make an effort to prevent distressing thoughts from entering conscious awareness in the first place. After a difficult breakup a teenager acts like nothing happened. While not particularly adaptive, many people live with significant repression and without particular anguish. It is possible that uncovering all of those repressed and suppressed feelings through the exploratory work of therapy may destabilize individuals from their tight rope.

• A less problematic explanation could also be what was previously referred to as therapeutic regression. In psychoanalytic theory, patients are generally thought to have a compromise formation, a psychological strategy used to reconcile conflicting drives. The compromise formation is the way a patient balances their desires against moral expectations and the realities of the external world. In therapy, that compromise formation can be challenged, leading to therapeutic regression.

By uncovering and confronting deeply rooted feelings, a patient may find that their symptoms temporarily intensify. This may not be a problem, but a necessary step to growth in some patients. It is possible that a program longer than 8 weeks would have overcome a temporary worsening in outcome measures.

While it’s easy to highlight the darker moments in psychiatric history, psychiatry has grown into a field which offers well-accepted and uncontroversially promoted forms of treatment. This is evolution, exemplified by the mere consideration of the universal use of psychotherapy for teenagers. But this raises important questions about the potential unintended consequences of normalizing and formalizing therapy. It prompted us to reflect on whether psychiatric treatment is always the best solution and if it might, at times, impede natural processes of growth and coping.

In this context, the study on universal DBT-based group skills training for teenagers challenged our assumptions. The unexpected outcomes suggest that societal and educational systems may naturally foster many of the skills that formalized therapy seeks to provide, and may do so with greater efficacy than that which prescriptive psychiatric treatments have to offer. Moreover, the universal discussion of psychiatric symptoms may not only destigmatize mental illness but also normalize it, potentially leading to unnecessary pathology.

Finally, the study prompted us to consider the fine balance that people find themselves in, questioning whether we should be so certain that our interventions can always provide a better outcome than an individual’s current coping mechanisms. These findings serve as a valuable reminder that our enthusiasm for widespread psychiatric interventions should be tempered by rigorous research and a nuanced understanding of human psychology and development.

This study could be an example of the grandiose stance psychiatry has at times taken of late, suggesting the field has an intervention for all that ails you and can serve as a corrective to society’s maladaptive deviations. Rising rates of mental illness in the community are not interpreted as a failing of the field of psychiatry, but as evidence that we need more psychiatrists. Acts of gun violence, ever increasing rates suicides, and even political disagreements are met with the idea that if only we had more mental health capacity, this could be avoided. This study suggests that not only is psychiatry potentially unhelpful in addressing the vicissitudes of mental anguish, but also may in fact, by its very promotion, be exacerbating them.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. ZoBell is a fourth-year senior resident at UCSD Psychiatry Residency Program. She is currently serving as the program’s Chief Resident at the VA San Diego on the inpatient psychiatric unit. Dr. ZoBell is interested in outpatient and emergency psychiatry as well as psychotherapy. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

Reference

1. Harvey, LJ, et al. Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2023.104408.