Perspectives

My Bing AI engine, when prompted, tells me that there are about 87 journals, 45 conferences, and 53 workshops presently dedicated exclusively to hypertension. All of that attention, and yet ...

What is going on?

The top killers of Americans remain coronary artery heart disease (26%), cancer (22%), and stroke (6%). The precursors and attributable risk factors for coronary artery heart disease include hypertension (40%), obesity (20%), diabetes (15%), and combustible tobacco use (15%). The key precursors and attributable risk factors for stroke are hypertension (53%), obesity (37%), diabetes (9%), and combustible tobacco use (11%). Obviously, these are estimates, with substantial overlap.

It’s pretty obvious that if the population and the health care systems of the United States were seriously interested in saving lives, they would strive diligently to control blood pressure, prevent obesity and diabetes, and eliminate combustible tobacco use.

We have addressed improving tobacco control and preventing obesity and diabetes on these pages many times, and lamented the medical, public health, and societal failings. Today we turn our attention to the control of hypertension. That is much easier and far less expensive.

All physicians and medical organizations know that hypertension is a major attributable cause of many serious, expensive, and fatal illnesses. As many as 119 million (48%) of American adults have hypertension. The American Heart Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and hundreds of other organizations have set a new target of 130/80 (revised from 140/90) for blood pressure control and have launched a major initiative, Target: BP, to reach it.

That is just great. We all wish this massive effort to succeed where few others have. But do AHA, AMA, ACC, and others understand why most efforts to this point have failed? The blame is typically aimed at patients failing to adhere to their instructions. Maybe, but why? And how does Target: BP intend to convert chronic failure into success if it just continues to do everything they have been trying to do that doesn’t work?

At this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fewer than 48% of American patients with hypertension meet even the less stringent historical 140/90 goal.

A group practice in Ohio, PriMed Physicians, has consistently exceeded 90% or even 95% blood pressure control for its patients with hypertension for more than 10 years. Exemplary. How do they do it? This video of the 13th annual Lundberg Institute lecture describes this unique and successful program.

PriMed’s clinicians use the MedsEngine AI tool from MediSync and the NICaS (noninvasive cardiac system with impedance cardiography) to determine each patient’s unique blood pressure pathophysiology. Clinicians and patients understand that the simplest explanation of this pathophysiology encompasses three factors: (1) the volume of “water” (blood) in the system; (2) the strength of the pumping (pulsatile) process; and (3) the tightness (resistance) of the tubes that carry the blood. Patients “get it” when it is explained this way, and they cooperate.

At the first patient encounter, the Food and Drug Administration–approved PhysioFlow is employed to assess those three vital hemodynamic factors. The individual patient’s data are loaded into a tightly programed EHR-based algorithm with 37 clinical factors and five classes of drugs, providing multiple ways to influence the three key pathophysiologic processes. In this way, they arrive at the precise drug(s) and dosages for that patient. During the second visit, most patients are already showing improvement. By the third visit, the blood pressures of most patients have reached target control. After that, it is maintenance and tweaking.

These factors summarize why it works:

• Senior management belief, commitment, and leadership
• Informed buy-in from clinicians and patients
• A test that determines root causes of too much fluid, too strong pump action, or too tight pipes, and their proportionality
• An AI tool that matches those three pathophysiologic factors and 35 other clinical factors with the best drug or drugs (of many, not just a few) and dosages
• Persistent clinician-patient follow-up
• Refusal to accept failure

Since this approach is so successful, why is its use not everywhere?

It is not as if nobody noticed, even if you and many organizations have not. The American Medical Group Association recognized the program’s success by giving its top award to PriMed in 2015.

Klepper and Rodis wrote about this approach for managing multiple chronic conditions in 2021. Here’s a background article and an explainer, Clinical use of impedance cardiography for hemodynamic assessment of early cardiovascular disease and management of hypertension.

I found one pragmatic controlled clinical trial of impedance cardiography with a decision-support system from Beijing that did demonstrate clinical and statistical significance.

Frankly, we do need more rigorous, unbiased, large, controlled clinical trials assessing the MedsEngine and NICaS approach to managing blood pressure to facilitate a massive switch from the old and established (but failing) approach to a starkly better way.

Almost no one ever “completes a database.” All decision makers must act based upon the best data to which they have access. Data are often incomplete. The difference between success and mediocrity is often the ability of an individual or system to decide when enough information is enough and act accordingly.

Cost-effectiveness studies in three countries (United Kingdom, United States, and China) confirm sharply lower lifelong costs when blood pressure is well controlled. Of course.

For the American medical-industrial complex, lowered costs for managing common serious diseases may be an undesired rather than a good thing. In money-driven medicine, lower costs to the payer and purchaser translate to less revenue for the providers. Imagine all of those invasive and noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures forgone by prevention of hypertension. Is it possible that such an underlying truth is the real reason why American medicine is habitually unsuccessful at controlling blood pressure?

Right now, if my blood pressure were not well controlled (it is), I would find my way to Cincinnati, to give PriMed physicians, MediSync, and MedsEngine a crack at prolonging my useful life.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My Bing AI engine, when prompted, tells me that there are about 87 journals, 45 conferences, and 53 workshops presently dedicated exclusively to hypertension. All of that attention, and yet ...

What is going on?

The top killers of Americans remain coronary artery heart disease (26%), cancer (22%), and stroke (6%). The precursors and attributable risk factors for coronary artery heart disease include hypertension (40%), obesity (20%), diabetes (15%), and combustible tobacco use (15%). The key precursors and attributable risk factors for stroke are hypertension (53%), obesity (37%), diabetes (9%), and combustible tobacco use (11%). Obviously, these are estimates, with substantial overlap.

It’s pretty obvious that if the population and the health care systems of the United States were seriously interested in saving lives, they would strive diligently to control blood pressure, prevent obesity and diabetes, and eliminate combustible tobacco use.

We have addressed improving tobacco control and preventing obesity and diabetes on these pages many times, and lamented the medical, public health, and societal failings. Today we turn our attention to the control of hypertension. That is much easier and far less expensive.

All physicians and medical organizations know that hypertension is a major attributable cause of many serious, expensive, and fatal illnesses. As many as 119 million (48%) of American adults have hypertension. The American Heart Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and hundreds of other organizations have set a new target of 130/80 (revised from 140/90) for blood pressure control and have launched a major initiative, Target: BP, to reach it.

That is just great. We all wish this massive effort to succeed where few others have. But do AHA, AMA, ACC, and others understand why most efforts to this point have failed? The blame is typically aimed at patients failing to adhere to their instructions. Maybe, but why? And how does Target: BP intend to convert chronic failure into success if it just continues to do everything they have been trying to do that doesn’t work?

At this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fewer than 48% of American patients with hypertension meet even the less stringent historical 140/90 goal.

A group practice in Ohio, PriMed Physicians, has consistently exceeded 90% or even 95% blood pressure control for its patients with hypertension for more than 10 years. Exemplary. How do they do it? This video of the 13th annual Lundberg Institute lecture describes this unique and successful program.

PriMed’s clinicians use the MedsEngine AI tool from MediSync and the NICaS (noninvasive cardiac system with impedance cardiography) to determine each patient’s unique blood pressure pathophysiology. Clinicians and patients understand that the simplest explanation of this pathophysiology encompasses three factors: (1) the volume of “water” (blood) in the system; (2) the strength of the pumping (pulsatile) process; and (3) the tightness (resistance) of the tubes that carry the blood. Patients “get it” when it is explained this way, and they cooperate.

At the first patient encounter, the Food and Drug Administration–approved PhysioFlow is employed to assess those three vital hemodynamic factors. The individual patient’s data are loaded into a tightly programed EHR-based algorithm with 37 clinical factors and five classes of drugs, providing multiple ways to influence the three key pathophysiologic processes. In this way, they arrive at the precise drug(s) and dosages for that patient. During the second visit, most patients are already showing improvement. By the third visit, the blood pressures of most patients have reached target control. After that, it is maintenance and tweaking.

These factors summarize why it works:

• Senior management belief, commitment, and leadership
• Informed buy-in from clinicians and patients
• A test that determines root causes of too much fluid, too strong pump action, or too tight pipes, and their proportionality
• An AI tool that matches those three pathophysiologic factors and 35 other clinical factors with the best drug or drugs (of many, not just a few) and dosages
• Persistent clinician-patient follow-up
• Refusal to accept failure

Since this approach is so successful, why is its use not everywhere?

It is not as if nobody noticed, even if you and many organizations have not. The American Medical Group Association recognized the program’s success by giving its top award to PriMed in 2015.

Klepper and Rodis wrote about this approach for managing multiple chronic conditions in 2021. Here’s a background article and an explainer, Clinical use of impedance cardiography for hemodynamic assessment of early cardiovascular disease and management of hypertension.

I found one pragmatic controlled clinical trial of impedance cardiography with a decision-support system from Beijing that did demonstrate clinical and statistical significance.

Frankly, we do need more rigorous, unbiased, large, controlled clinical trials assessing the MedsEngine and NICaS approach to managing blood pressure to facilitate a massive switch from the old and established (but failing) approach to a starkly better way.

Almost no one ever “completes a database.” All decision makers must act based upon the best data to which they have access. Data are often incomplete. The difference between success and mediocrity is often the ability of an individual or system to decide when enough information is enough and act accordingly.

Cost-effectiveness studies in three countries (United Kingdom, United States, and China) confirm sharply lower lifelong costs when blood pressure is well controlled. Of course.

For the American medical-industrial complex, lowered costs for managing common serious diseases may be an undesired rather than a good thing. In money-driven medicine, lower costs to the payer and purchaser translate to less revenue for the providers. Imagine all of those invasive and noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures forgone by prevention of hypertension. Is it possible that such an underlying truth is the real reason why American medicine is habitually unsuccessful at controlling blood pressure?

Right now, if my blood pressure were not well controlled (it is), I would find my way to Cincinnati, to give PriMed physicians, MediSync, and MedsEngine a crack at prolonging my useful life.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My Bing AI engine, when prompted, tells me that there are about 87 journals, 45 conferences, and 53 workshops presently dedicated exclusively to hypertension. All of that attention, and yet ...

What is going on?

The top killers of Americans remain coronary artery heart disease (26%), cancer (22%), and stroke (6%). The precursors and attributable risk factors for coronary artery heart disease include hypertension (40%), obesity (20%), diabetes (15%), and combustible tobacco use (15%). The key precursors and attributable risk factors for stroke are hypertension (53%), obesity (37%), diabetes (9%), and combustible tobacco use (11%). Obviously, these are estimates, with substantial overlap.

It’s pretty obvious that if the population and the health care systems of the United States were seriously interested in saving lives, they would strive diligently to control blood pressure, prevent obesity and diabetes, and eliminate combustible tobacco use.

We have addressed improving tobacco control and preventing obesity and diabetes on these pages many times, and lamented the medical, public health, and societal failings. Today we turn our attention to the control of hypertension. That is much easier and far less expensive.

All physicians and medical organizations know that hypertension is a major attributable cause of many serious, expensive, and fatal illnesses. As many as 119 million (48%) of American adults have hypertension. The American Heart Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and hundreds of other organizations have set a new target of 130/80 (revised from 140/90) for blood pressure control and have launched a major initiative, Target: BP, to reach it.

That is just great. We all wish this massive effort to succeed where few others have. But do AHA, AMA, ACC, and others understand why most efforts to this point have failed? The blame is typically aimed at patients failing to adhere to their instructions. Maybe, but why? And how does Target: BP intend to convert chronic failure into success if it just continues to do everything they have been trying to do that doesn’t work?

At this point, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that fewer than 48% of American patients with hypertension meet even the less stringent historical 140/90 goal.

A group practice in Ohio, PriMed Physicians, has consistently exceeded 90% or even 95% blood pressure control for its patients with hypertension for more than 10 years. Exemplary. How do they do it? This video of the 13th annual Lundberg Institute lecture describes this unique and successful program.

PriMed’s clinicians use the MedsEngine AI tool from MediSync and the NICaS (noninvasive cardiac system with impedance cardiography) to determine each patient’s unique blood pressure pathophysiology. Clinicians and patients understand that the simplest explanation of this pathophysiology encompasses three factors: (1) the volume of “water” (blood) in the system; (2) the strength of the pumping (pulsatile) process; and (3) the tightness (resistance) of the tubes that carry the blood. Patients “get it” when it is explained this way, and they cooperate.

At the first patient encounter, the Food and Drug Administration–approved PhysioFlow is employed to assess those three vital hemodynamic factors. The individual patient’s data are loaded into a tightly programed EHR-based algorithm with 37 clinical factors and five classes of drugs, providing multiple ways to influence the three key pathophysiologic processes. In this way, they arrive at the precise drug(s) and dosages for that patient. During the second visit, most patients are already showing improvement. By the third visit, the blood pressures of most patients have reached target control. After that, it is maintenance and tweaking.

These factors summarize why it works:

• Senior management belief, commitment, and leadership
• Informed buy-in from clinicians and patients
• A test that determines root causes of too much fluid, too strong pump action, or too tight pipes, and their proportionality
• An AI tool that matches those three pathophysiologic factors and 35 other clinical factors with the best drug or drugs (of many, not just a few) and dosages
• Persistent clinician-patient follow-up
• Refusal to accept failure

Since this approach is so successful, why is its use not everywhere?

It is not as if nobody noticed, even if you and many organizations have not. The American Medical Group Association recognized the program’s success by giving its top award to PriMed in 2015.

Klepper and Rodis wrote about this approach for managing multiple chronic conditions in 2021. Here’s a background article and an explainer, Clinical use of impedance cardiography for hemodynamic assessment of early cardiovascular disease and management of hypertension.

I found one pragmatic controlled clinical trial of impedance cardiography with a decision-support system from Beijing that did demonstrate clinical and statistical significance.

Frankly, we do need more rigorous, unbiased, large, controlled clinical trials assessing the MedsEngine and NICaS approach to managing blood pressure to facilitate a massive switch from the old and established (but failing) approach to a starkly better way.

Almost no one ever “completes a database.” All decision makers must act based upon the best data to which they have access. Data are often incomplete. The difference between success and mediocrity is often the ability of an individual or system to decide when enough information is enough and act accordingly.

Cost-effectiveness studies in three countries (United Kingdom, United States, and China) confirm sharply lower lifelong costs when blood pressure is well controlled. Of course.

For the American medical-industrial complex, lowered costs for managing common serious diseases may be an undesired rather than a good thing. In money-driven medicine, lower costs to the payer and purchaser translate to less revenue for the providers. Imagine all of those invasive and noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures forgone by prevention of hypertension. Is it possible that such an underlying truth is the real reason why American medicine is habitually unsuccessful at controlling blood pressure?

Right now, if my blood pressure were not well controlled (it is), I would find my way to Cincinnati, to give PriMed physicians, MediSync, and MedsEngine a crack at prolonging my useful life.

Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief of Cancer Commons. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

I was running my 25th New York City Marathon. It was 2018, and I almost pulled out of running that year. I wasn’t myself, and maybe that’s an understatement.

A month earlier, I had been involved in a malpractice case. I was found liable for $10 million. My colleagues didn’t think I had done anything wrong, but the jury did. And the local newspapers made me look like a villain.

I was devastated. But my priest, my friends, and my family all told me, “You can’t quit.” So, I decided to run for them.

I started on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge that morning with some friends from work. I usually listen to music as I’m running, but I didn’t that year. I was just in my zone, enjoying the crowds. They’re huge. Millions of people on the streets.

I was running well. I did half the race in an hour and 57 minutes. My family always meets me at mile 17, and I was almost there. I had reached 59th Street and was about to make the turn onto First Avenue.

That’s one of the noisiest places in the marathon. There’s a kind of tunnel, and with the crowd and the throng of runners, it’s incredibly loud. But somehow, I heard somebody yell, “Help!”

Now, how I heard that, I don’t know. And if I’d been listening to music like I always do, no way I would’ve heard it. I could swear it was an angel on my shoulder that said, “Turn around, dummy. You’ve got a person that needs your help to your left.”

I turned around and about 30 feet behind me, I saw a woman waving her hands and a runner on the ground. I thought, Somebody fainted. I pushed through the crowd to get to them. The woman was crying, saying, “My friend went down to tie her shoe and she fell back. I think she’s seizing or something.”

I got down and tried to wake the other woman up. I lifted her legs up. But I quickly realized there was more to the story. I felt for pulses and couldn’t feel them. I screamed for a defibrillator and started to do CPR.

Some volunteers and police started coming toward us. The police officers looked at me like, What’s this guy doing? I explained that I was a physician, and one of them began helping me with the CPR. As we did that, someone brought a defibrillator.

Meanwhile, runners were going past, almost over us. The police officers were trying to create a barrier.

The machine gave the woman a shock, but we didn’t get a response, so we resumed CPR. At that point, my legs began to cramp so badly I couldn’t go on. So the police officer took over, and I yelled, “I need an ambu bag!” Somebody brought one, and I started giving her oxygen.

At that point, a paramedic team arrived with a bigger defibrillator. We shocked her again. And again. That time we got results, but she quickly went out again. The fourth time, we got her heart back and she started breathing on her own.

We finally got her into an ambulance. I wanted to go with them, but the woman’s friend needed to get in, so there wasn’t enough room.

And then they were gone, and I was just standing there.

A police officer put his arm around me. He said, “Doc, you’re amazing. What do you need? Where can I take you?”

I said, “Take me? My wife is waiting for me at mile 17.”

I took off and ran. When I got to my wife and kids, they were so worried. We all wear tracking devices, and they could see that I had stopped for more than 20 minutes.

I fell into my wife’s arms and told her what had happened. I was crying. “I don’t know what to do. I need to get to the hospital.”

And she said, “No, you need to go finish the race.”

So, I did. It was painful because of the cramps, but I was numb at that point. I was thinking about the woman the whole way. My time was 5 hours and 20 minutes.

As soon as I finished, I went to every police officer I could find, but nobody knew anything. Suddenly, I remembered my cousin. He had previously been the head of EMS for New York City. I called him. “Abdo, it’s Ted, you’ve got to do me a favor.”

“What?” he said. “Are you delirious from running the marathon?”

I told him what I needed. He called me back 5 minutes later and said, “Ted, what’d you do? Everybody wants to know who you are and where you are! The woman just went out again at New York Cornell. But they got her back, and they’re bringing her up to the cath lab.”

After every marathon that I run, we host a big party at our house. My family and friends and neighbors all celebrate while I’m dying on the couch. That night, my daughter told everyone the story of what happened.

But I was still not right. Still thinking about the malpractice suit.

Yes, I just did something great. But I’d recently been called the worst physician in the world. The distraction of the marathon was gone, and I was back to thinking, What am I going to do with my life? Who’s ever going to want to see me again? I’m a pariah.

Everybody said, “Ted, what happened a month ago isn’t you. What happened today was you.”

I told them to leave it alone, but my daughter and my neighbor started calling people anyway. The next day I got a call from the local newspaper. It was the same journalist who had written about me from the trial. I told him I didn’t want to talk. I was actually pretty nasty.

But my wife said, “Ted, what are you doing? That guy was trying to help you.” So, I called back and apologized.

“Dr. Strange, we knew that story wasn’t right,” he said. “We have to write this story.”

After the article came out, I started getting more calls from the media. Channel 7 News and CBS News did segments. The New York Knicks invited us to a game and presented me with a watch. It was incredible. But I was also really embarrassed by it.

People started calling me a hero. I’m not a hero. I just did what I’m supposed to do, what I’m trained to do. Shame on me if I don’t do that. Good guy and hopefully good physician, sure, but not a hero.

I also give credit to the City of New York Police Department, the FDNY, and the volunteers. Without them, I couldn’t have done what I did. It was a true team effort.

A few weeks later, the woman went home to Minnesota. She’ll never run a marathon again, but she’s still alive to this day. It turned out she had a single lesion called the “widow-maker” lesion. She was in perfect health and had just completed an ultramarathon a few months before; but she had a genetic predisposition. She still calls me every December to thank me for another Christmas.

There’s more.

One year after this whole thing, almost to the date, I got a call from my attorney. “The court just threw out the malpractice verdict,” he said. “You didn’t do anything wrong.”

I’m a man of faith. And I believe all this happened for a reason. Maybe God was sending me a message, and that’s why I heard a call for help on 59th Street in my 25th marathon among millions of people in a crowd.

I ran the marathon the next year. And when I got to that spot, I stopped and reflected. Nobody knew why I was standing there, but I knew. To this day, I could take you to that spot.

I turn 65 next July, and I plan to keep on running the race.
 

Dr. Strange is chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital, associate ambulatory physician executive of the Staten Island Region, and an internal medicine and geriatric medicine physician with Northwell Health.

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

I was running my 25th New York City Marathon. It was 2018, and I almost pulled out of running that year. I wasn’t myself, and maybe that’s an understatement.

A month earlier, I had been involved in a malpractice case. I was found liable for $10 million. My colleagues didn’t think I had done anything wrong, but the jury did. And the local newspapers made me look like a villain.

I was devastated. But my priest, my friends, and my family all told me, “You can’t quit.” So, I decided to run for them.

I started on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge that morning with some friends from work. I usually listen to music as I’m running, but I didn’t that year. I was just in my zone, enjoying the crowds. They’re huge. Millions of people on the streets.

I was running well. I did half the race in an hour and 57 minutes. My family always meets me at mile 17, and I was almost there. I had reached 59th Street and was about to make the turn onto First Avenue.

That’s one of the noisiest places in the marathon. There’s a kind of tunnel, and with the crowd and the throng of runners, it’s incredibly loud. But somehow, I heard somebody yell, “Help!”

Now, how I heard that, I don’t know. And if I’d been listening to music like I always do, no way I would’ve heard it. I could swear it was an angel on my shoulder that said, “Turn around, dummy. You’ve got a person that needs your help to your left.”

I turned around and about 30 feet behind me, I saw a woman waving her hands and a runner on the ground. I thought, Somebody fainted. I pushed through the crowd to get to them. The woman was crying, saying, “My friend went down to tie her shoe and she fell back. I think she’s seizing or something.”

I got down and tried to wake the other woman up. I lifted her legs up. But I quickly realized there was more to the story. I felt for pulses and couldn’t feel them. I screamed for a defibrillator and started to do CPR.

Some volunteers and police started coming toward us. The police officers looked at me like, What’s this guy doing? I explained that I was a physician, and one of them began helping me with the CPR. As we did that, someone brought a defibrillator.

Meanwhile, runners were going past, almost over us. The police officers were trying to create a barrier.

The machine gave the woman a shock, but we didn’t get a response, so we resumed CPR. At that point, my legs began to cramp so badly I couldn’t go on. So the police officer took over, and I yelled, “I need an ambu bag!” Somebody brought one, and I started giving her oxygen.

At that point, a paramedic team arrived with a bigger defibrillator. We shocked her again. And again. That time we got results, but she quickly went out again. The fourth time, we got her heart back and she started breathing on her own.

We finally got her into an ambulance. I wanted to go with them, but the woman’s friend needed to get in, so there wasn’t enough room.

And then they were gone, and I was just standing there.

A police officer put his arm around me. He said, “Doc, you’re amazing. What do you need? Where can I take you?”

I said, “Take me? My wife is waiting for me at mile 17.”

I took off and ran. When I got to my wife and kids, they were so worried. We all wear tracking devices, and they could see that I had stopped for more than 20 minutes.

I fell into my wife’s arms and told her what had happened. I was crying. “I don’t know what to do. I need to get to the hospital.”

And she said, “No, you need to go finish the race.”

So, I did. It was painful because of the cramps, but I was numb at that point. I was thinking about the woman the whole way. My time was 5 hours and 20 minutes.

As soon as I finished, I went to every police officer I could find, but nobody knew anything. Suddenly, I remembered my cousin. He had previously been the head of EMS for New York City. I called him. “Abdo, it’s Ted, you’ve got to do me a favor.”

“What?” he said. “Are you delirious from running the marathon?”

I told him what I needed. He called me back 5 minutes later and said, “Ted, what’d you do? Everybody wants to know who you are and where you are! The woman just went out again at New York Cornell. But they got her back, and they’re bringing her up to the cath lab.”

After every marathon that I run, we host a big party at our house. My family and friends and neighbors all celebrate while I’m dying on the couch. That night, my daughter told everyone the story of what happened.

But I was still not right. Still thinking about the malpractice suit.

Yes, I just did something great. But I’d recently been called the worst physician in the world. The distraction of the marathon was gone, and I was back to thinking, What am I going to do with my life? Who’s ever going to want to see me again? I’m a pariah.

Everybody said, “Ted, what happened a month ago isn’t you. What happened today was you.”

I told them to leave it alone, but my daughter and my neighbor started calling people anyway. The next day I got a call from the local newspaper. It was the same journalist who had written about me from the trial. I told him I didn’t want to talk. I was actually pretty nasty.

But my wife said, “Ted, what are you doing? That guy was trying to help you.” So, I called back and apologized.

“Dr. Strange, we knew that story wasn’t right,” he said. “We have to write this story.”

After the article came out, I started getting more calls from the media. Channel 7 News and CBS News did segments. The New York Knicks invited us to a game and presented me with a watch. It was incredible. But I was also really embarrassed by it.

People started calling me a hero. I’m not a hero. I just did what I’m supposed to do, what I’m trained to do. Shame on me if I don’t do that. Good guy and hopefully good physician, sure, but not a hero.

I also give credit to the City of New York Police Department, the FDNY, and the volunteers. Without them, I couldn’t have done what I did. It was a true team effort.

A few weeks later, the woman went home to Minnesota. She’ll never run a marathon again, but she’s still alive to this day. It turned out she had a single lesion called the “widow-maker” lesion. She was in perfect health and had just completed an ultramarathon a few months before; but she had a genetic predisposition. She still calls me every December to thank me for another Christmas.

There’s more.

One year after this whole thing, almost to the date, I got a call from my attorney. “The court just threw out the malpractice verdict,” he said. “You didn’t do anything wrong.”

I’m a man of faith. And I believe all this happened for a reason. Maybe God was sending me a message, and that’s why I heard a call for help on 59th Street in my 25th marathon among millions of people in a crowd.

I ran the marathon the next year. And when I got to that spot, I stopped and reflected. Nobody knew why I was standing there, but I knew. To this day, I could take you to that spot.

I turn 65 next July, and I plan to keep on running the race.
 

Dr. Strange is chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital, associate ambulatory physician executive of the Staten Island Region, and an internal medicine and geriatric medicine physician with Northwell Health.

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

I was running my 25th New York City Marathon. It was 2018, and I almost pulled out of running that year. I wasn’t myself, and maybe that’s an understatement.

A month earlier, I had been involved in a malpractice case. I was found liable for $10 million. My colleagues didn’t think I had done anything wrong, but the jury did. And the local newspapers made me look like a villain.

I was devastated. But my priest, my friends, and my family all told me, “You can’t quit.” So, I decided to run for them.

I started on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge that morning with some friends from work. I usually listen to music as I’m running, but I didn’t that year. I was just in my zone, enjoying the crowds. They’re huge. Millions of people on the streets.

I was running well. I did half the race in an hour and 57 minutes. My family always meets me at mile 17, and I was almost there. I had reached 59th Street and was about to make the turn onto First Avenue.

That’s one of the noisiest places in the marathon. There’s a kind of tunnel, and with the crowd and the throng of runners, it’s incredibly loud. But somehow, I heard somebody yell, “Help!”

Now, how I heard that, I don’t know. And if I’d been listening to music like I always do, no way I would’ve heard it. I could swear it was an angel on my shoulder that said, “Turn around, dummy. You’ve got a person that needs your help to your left.”

I turned around and about 30 feet behind me, I saw a woman waving her hands and a runner on the ground. I thought, Somebody fainted. I pushed through the crowd to get to them. The woman was crying, saying, “My friend went down to tie her shoe and she fell back. I think she’s seizing or something.”

I got down and tried to wake the other woman up. I lifted her legs up. But I quickly realized there was more to the story. I felt for pulses and couldn’t feel them. I screamed for a defibrillator and started to do CPR.

Some volunteers and police started coming toward us. The police officers looked at me like, What’s this guy doing? I explained that I was a physician, and one of them began helping me with the CPR. As we did that, someone brought a defibrillator.

Meanwhile, runners were going past, almost over us. The police officers were trying to create a barrier.

The machine gave the woman a shock, but we didn’t get a response, so we resumed CPR. At that point, my legs began to cramp so badly I couldn’t go on. So the police officer took over, and I yelled, “I need an ambu bag!” Somebody brought one, and I started giving her oxygen.

At that point, a paramedic team arrived with a bigger defibrillator. We shocked her again. And again. That time we got results, but she quickly went out again. The fourth time, we got her heart back and she started breathing on her own.

We finally got her into an ambulance. I wanted to go with them, but the woman’s friend needed to get in, so there wasn’t enough room.

And then they were gone, and I was just standing there.

A police officer put his arm around me. He said, “Doc, you’re amazing. What do you need? Where can I take you?”

I said, “Take me? My wife is waiting for me at mile 17.”

I took off and ran. When I got to my wife and kids, they were so worried. We all wear tracking devices, and they could see that I had stopped for more than 20 minutes.

I fell into my wife’s arms and told her what had happened. I was crying. “I don’t know what to do. I need to get to the hospital.”

And she said, “No, you need to go finish the race.”

So, I did. It was painful because of the cramps, but I was numb at that point. I was thinking about the woman the whole way. My time was 5 hours and 20 minutes.

As soon as I finished, I went to every police officer I could find, but nobody knew anything. Suddenly, I remembered my cousin. He had previously been the head of EMS for New York City. I called him. “Abdo, it’s Ted, you’ve got to do me a favor.”

“What?” he said. “Are you delirious from running the marathon?”

I told him what I needed. He called me back 5 minutes later and said, “Ted, what’d you do? Everybody wants to know who you are and where you are! The woman just went out again at New York Cornell. But they got her back, and they’re bringing her up to the cath lab.”

After every marathon that I run, we host a big party at our house. My family and friends and neighbors all celebrate while I’m dying on the couch. That night, my daughter told everyone the story of what happened.

But I was still not right. Still thinking about the malpractice suit.

Yes, I just did something great. But I’d recently been called the worst physician in the world. The distraction of the marathon was gone, and I was back to thinking, What am I going to do with my life? Who’s ever going to want to see me again? I’m a pariah.

Everybody said, “Ted, what happened a month ago isn’t you. What happened today was you.”

I told them to leave it alone, but my daughter and my neighbor started calling people anyway. The next day I got a call from the local newspaper. It was the same journalist who had written about me from the trial. I told him I didn’t want to talk. I was actually pretty nasty.

But my wife said, “Ted, what are you doing? That guy was trying to help you.” So, I called back and apologized.

“Dr. Strange, we knew that story wasn’t right,” he said. “We have to write this story.”

After the article came out, I started getting more calls from the media. Channel 7 News and CBS News did segments. The New York Knicks invited us to a game and presented me with a watch. It was incredible. But I was also really embarrassed by it.

People started calling me a hero. I’m not a hero. I just did what I’m supposed to do, what I’m trained to do. Shame on me if I don’t do that. Good guy and hopefully good physician, sure, but not a hero.

I also give credit to the City of New York Police Department, the FDNY, and the volunteers. Without them, I couldn’t have done what I did. It was a true team effort.

A few weeks later, the woman went home to Minnesota. She’ll never run a marathon again, but she’s still alive to this day. It turned out she had a single lesion called the “widow-maker” lesion. She was in perfect health and had just completed an ultramarathon a few months before; but she had a genetic predisposition. She still calls me every December to thank me for another Christmas.

There’s more.

One year after this whole thing, almost to the date, I got a call from my attorney. “The court just threw out the malpractice verdict,” he said. “You didn’t do anything wrong.”

I’m a man of faith. And I believe all this happened for a reason. Maybe God was sending me a message, and that’s why I heard a call for help on 59th Street in my 25th marathon among millions of people in a crowd.

I ran the marathon the next year. And when I got to that spot, I stopped and reflected. Nobody knew why I was standing there, but I knew. To this day, I could take you to that spot.

I turn 65 next July, and I plan to keep on running the race.
 

Dr. Strange is chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital, associate ambulatory physician executive of the Staten Island Region, and an internal medicine and geriatric medicine physician with Northwell Health.

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

Making medications more accessible to those who need them is the focus of attention in the media and in all levels of government. For a drug to be accessible, it must be affordable and available. Something may be affordable, but if it isn’t available, no one will have access to it. Think of toilet paper in the first year of the COVID pandemic. The opposite is also true. An item may be available, but if it isn’t affordable, access is lost. While medication affordability is viewed as the major problem for patients, lack of availability has begun to creep into our drug supply chain. We are now experiencing drug shortages for medications that are very affordable. The perverse incentives, inherent in formulary construction, favor higher-priced medications, which decreases the availability of lower-priced – yet still expensive – drugs, thus increasing patient cost share. Formulary placement and patient cost share, important determinants of accessibility, are controlled by health plans and differ considerably even from the same payer. And yet, the price of drugs remains the target of most approaches to increasing patients’ access. And now price negotiations and drug affordability boards enter into the picture.

What are prescription drug affordability boards?

Both state and federal legislatures have placed the affordability of medications front and center on their agendas. However, neither are considering how formulary construction affects patient’s access to medications. The Inflation Reduction Act is Congress’s foray into price setting/negotiation of expensive drugs. Over the last few years, states are also attempting to make drugs more affordable by creating prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs). Governors (or other state leaders) appoint PDAB members who are charged with the task of evaluating the affordability of certain drugs for both the state and its residents. How to do it, and what the limitations are, vary from state to state. In 2019, Maryland was first state to establish a PDAB, charging its members to study commercial insurance and drug pricing and make recommendations on how to make drugs more affordable for Maryland residents. Other states that have passed PDAB legislation are Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington.

Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington – and soon Maryland and Oregon – hope to make drugs more affordable for patients by allowing their PDABs to set an upper payment limit (UPL). A UPL serves as a cap on the sales price and reimbursement for a drug. The Michigan legislature is actively debating legislation that would establish a PDAB and allow it to set UPLs. On the surface, this may appear to be a potential solution to the affordability issue. However, as always, there are many questions as to how this will work and what are the unintended consequences of price setting and establishing UPLs for medications. UPLs have the potential to harm access to provider-administered drugs. With the help of advocacy from the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Washington’s PDAB statute potentially has a carve-out for provider-administered drugs.
 

Possible unintended consequences for provider-administered drugs

CSRO asked for a meeting with the Colorado PDAB after they announced their list of drugs for which UPLs would be set. We spoke with the PDAB in October, hoping to point out some of the unintended consequences that needed to be considered. One of the big questions we have revolves around the “buy and bill” provider-administered drugs. According to the language of the Colorado statute, providers would not be paid any more than the UPL for a drug administered in their office. CSRO is concerned that this would leave providers uncompensated for the service of administering the drug and associated overhead. This is not to mention that providers may not be able to find a group purchasing organization that would even sell the drug at the UPL, much less a lower price than the UPL. And even if a provider could buy it at the UPL, that would mean there would be no margin to cover the overhead for their infusion suite. Interestingly, while Colorado’s rules for the UPL state that pharmacies can be paid an additional reasonable dispensing fee beyond the UPL, no such allowance is made for providers administering one of these medications. In fact, the Colorado PDAB specifically indicated that the goal of the state’s UPL methodology was to ensure that there was no “delta” between what is paid for the drug by the provider and what is reimbursed to a provider for the drug by the payer. This may cause some providers to be unable to “afford” to administer those drugs with UPLs, which ultimately reduces access for residents of Colorado to that particular medication. This is the exact opposite of what the PDAB is supposed to accomplish.

There are still many questions. What impact will UPLs have on a medication’s placement on a formulary? As we know, preferred formulary placement is often given to drugs with the highest price concession from the manufacturers. Will setting a UPL on payment for specialty pharmacy drugs to pharmacy benefit manager-owned specialty pharmacies affect that drug’s ability to be on the formulary? And again, how will the PDAB resolve the issue of compensating the provider for overhead costs associated with administering the medication?

Even more confusing questions remain. How will the UPL be enforced when a “purchase” or “sale” of the drug is made by an out-of-state entity somewhere along the supply chain? When ultimately the drug is purchased and delivered to a Colorado consumer by a Colorado provider/pharmacy, there are multiple points of the supply chain that may be outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado to enforce the UPL. This would create a misalignment in pricing among various supply chain entities.

While the sentiment behind creating PDABs is noble, it may end up having the unintended consequence of patients losing access to these drugs because of the perverse incentives involved in formulary construction or providers’ inability to afford to offer provider-administered drugs with UPLs.

Remember, expensive specialty pharmacy medications are already discounted greatly by manufacturers, often more than 50% to pharmacy benefit managers; and yet those cost savings are not passed on to the patients. Also, there is no oversight of 340B hospital contracted pharmacies to make sure that they pass those savings on to needy patients. Perhaps PDABs should address those issues, as well, if patient access to expensive medications is the goal.

Clearly, there are no easy answers. But with so many variables in the drug supply chain affecting patient access, concentrating only on one aspect may end up causing more harm than good. If your state is thinking of passing a PDAB, please let your legislators know that there are issues with this type of legislation that perhaps should be worked out before the bill is passed.
 

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

Making medications more accessible to those who need them is the focus of attention in the media and in all levels of government. For a drug to be accessible, it must be affordable and available. Something may be affordable, but if it isn’t available, no one will have access to it. Think of toilet paper in the first year of the COVID pandemic. The opposite is also true. An item may be available, but if it isn’t affordable, access is lost. While medication affordability is viewed as the major problem for patients, lack of availability has begun to creep into our drug supply chain. We are now experiencing drug shortages for medications that are very affordable. The perverse incentives, inherent in formulary construction, favor higher-priced medications, which decreases the availability of lower-priced – yet still expensive – drugs, thus increasing patient cost share. Formulary placement and patient cost share, important determinants of accessibility, are controlled by health plans and differ considerably even from the same payer. And yet, the price of drugs remains the target of most approaches to increasing patients’ access. And now price negotiations and drug affordability boards enter into the picture.

What are prescription drug affordability boards?

Both state and federal legislatures have placed the affordability of medications front and center on their agendas. However, neither are considering how formulary construction affects patient’s access to medications. The Inflation Reduction Act is Congress’s foray into price setting/negotiation of expensive drugs. Over the last few years, states are also attempting to make drugs more affordable by creating prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs). Governors (or other state leaders) appoint PDAB members who are charged with the task of evaluating the affordability of certain drugs for both the state and its residents. How to do it, and what the limitations are, vary from state to state. In 2019, Maryland was first state to establish a PDAB, charging its members to study commercial insurance and drug pricing and make recommendations on how to make drugs more affordable for Maryland residents. Other states that have passed PDAB legislation are Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington.

Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington – and soon Maryland and Oregon – hope to make drugs more affordable for patients by allowing their PDABs to set an upper payment limit (UPL). A UPL serves as a cap on the sales price and reimbursement for a drug. The Michigan legislature is actively debating legislation that would establish a PDAB and allow it to set UPLs. On the surface, this may appear to be a potential solution to the affordability issue. However, as always, there are many questions as to how this will work and what are the unintended consequences of price setting and establishing UPLs for medications. UPLs have the potential to harm access to provider-administered drugs. With the help of advocacy from the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Washington’s PDAB statute potentially has a carve-out for provider-administered drugs.
 

Possible unintended consequences for provider-administered drugs

CSRO asked for a meeting with the Colorado PDAB after they announced their list of drugs for which UPLs would be set. We spoke with the PDAB in October, hoping to point out some of the unintended consequences that needed to be considered. One of the big questions we have revolves around the “buy and bill” provider-administered drugs. According to the language of the Colorado statute, providers would not be paid any more than the UPL for a drug administered in their office. CSRO is concerned that this would leave providers uncompensated for the service of administering the drug and associated overhead. This is not to mention that providers may not be able to find a group purchasing organization that would even sell the drug at the UPL, much less a lower price than the UPL. And even if a provider could buy it at the UPL, that would mean there would be no margin to cover the overhead for their infusion suite. Interestingly, while Colorado’s rules for the UPL state that pharmacies can be paid an additional reasonable dispensing fee beyond the UPL, no such allowance is made for providers administering one of these medications. In fact, the Colorado PDAB specifically indicated that the goal of the state’s UPL methodology was to ensure that there was no “delta” between what is paid for the drug by the provider and what is reimbursed to a provider for the drug by the payer. This may cause some providers to be unable to “afford” to administer those drugs with UPLs, which ultimately reduces access for residents of Colorado to that particular medication. This is the exact opposite of what the PDAB is supposed to accomplish.

There are still many questions. What impact will UPLs have on a medication’s placement on a formulary? As we know, preferred formulary placement is often given to drugs with the highest price concession from the manufacturers. Will setting a UPL on payment for specialty pharmacy drugs to pharmacy benefit manager-owned specialty pharmacies affect that drug’s ability to be on the formulary? And again, how will the PDAB resolve the issue of compensating the provider for overhead costs associated with administering the medication?

Even more confusing questions remain. How will the UPL be enforced when a “purchase” or “sale” of the drug is made by an out-of-state entity somewhere along the supply chain? When ultimately the drug is purchased and delivered to a Colorado consumer by a Colorado provider/pharmacy, there are multiple points of the supply chain that may be outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado to enforce the UPL. This would create a misalignment in pricing among various supply chain entities.

While the sentiment behind creating PDABs is noble, it may end up having the unintended consequence of patients losing access to these drugs because of the perverse incentives involved in formulary construction or providers’ inability to afford to offer provider-administered drugs with UPLs.

Remember, expensive specialty pharmacy medications are already discounted greatly by manufacturers, often more than 50% to pharmacy benefit managers; and yet those cost savings are not passed on to the patients. Also, there is no oversight of 340B hospital contracted pharmacies to make sure that they pass those savings on to needy patients. Perhaps PDABs should address those issues, as well, if patient access to expensive medications is the goal.

Clearly, there are no easy answers. But with so many variables in the drug supply chain affecting patient access, concentrating only on one aspect may end up causing more harm than good. If your state is thinking of passing a PDAB, please let your legislators know that there are issues with this type of legislation that perhaps should be worked out before the bill is passed.
 

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

Making medications more accessible to those who need them is the focus of attention in the media and in all levels of government. For a drug to be accessible, it must be affordable and available. Something may be affordable, but if it isn’t available, no one will have access to it. Think of toilet paper in the first year of the COVID pandemic. The opposite is also true. An item may be available, but if it isn’t affordable, access is lost. While medication affordability is viewed as the major problem for patients, lack of availability has begun to creep into our drug supply chain. We are now experiencing drug shortages for medications that are very affordable. The perverse incentives, inherent in formulary construction, favor higher-priced medications, which decreases the availability of lower-priced – yet still expensive – drugs, thus increasing patient cost share. Formulary placement and patient cost share, important determinants of accessibility, are controlled by health plans and differ considerably even from the same payer. And yet, the price of drugs remains the target of most approaches to increasing patients’ access. And now price negotiations and drug affordability boards enter into the picture.

What are prescription drug affordability boards?

Both state and federal legislatures have placed the affordability of medications front and center on their agendas. However, neither are considering how formulary construction affects patient’s access to medications. The Inflation Reduction Act is Congress’s foray into price setting/negotiation of expensive drugs. Over the last few years, states are also attempting to make drugs more affordable by creating prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs). Governors (or other state leaders) appoint PDAB members who are charged with the task of evaluating the affordability of certain drugs for both the state and its residents. How to do it, and what the limitations are, vary from state to state. In 2019, Maryland was first state to establish a PDAB, charging its members to study commercial insurance and drug pricing and make recommendations on how to make drugs more affordable for Maryland residents. Other states that have passed PDAB legislation are Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington.

Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington – and soon Maryland and Oregon – hope to make drugs more affordable for patients by allowing their PDABs to set an upper payment limit (UPL). A UPL serves as a cap on the sales price and reimbursement for a drug. The Michigan legislature is actively debating legislation that would establish a PDAB and allow it to set UPLs. On the surface, this may appear to be a potential solution to the affordability issue. However, as always, there are many questions as to how this will work and what are the unintended consequences of price setting and establishing UPLs for medications. UPLs have the potential to harm access to provider-administered drugs. With the help of advocacy from the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Washington’s PDAB statute potentially has a carve-out for provider-administered drugs.
 

Possible unintended consequences for provider-administered drugs

CSRO asked for a meeting with the Colorado PDAB after they announced their list of drugs for which UPLs would be set. We spoke with the PDAB in October, hoping to point out some of the unintended consequences that needed to be considered. One of the big questions we have revolves around the “buy and bill” provider-administered drugs. According to the language of the Colorado statute, providers would not be paid any more than the UPL for a drug administered in their office. CSRO is concerned that this would leave providers uncompensated for the service of administering the drug and associated overhead. This is not to mention that providers may not be able to find a group purchasing organization that would even sell the drug at the UPL, much less a lower price than the UPL. And even if a provider could buy it at the UPL, that would mean there would be no margin to cover the overhead for their infusion suite. Interestingly, while Colorado’s rules for the UPL state that pharmacies can be paid an additional reasonable dispensing fee beyond the UPL, no such allowance is made for providers administering one of these medications. In fact, the Colorado PDAB specifically indicated that the goal of the state’s UPL methodology was to ensure that there was no “delta” between what is paid for the drug by the provider and what is reimbursed to a provider for the drug by the payer. This may cause some providers to be unable to “afford” to administer those drugs with UPLs, which ultimately reduces access for residents of Colorado to that particular medication. This is the exact opposite of what the PDAB is supposed to accomplish.

There are still many questions. What impact will UPLs have on a medication’s placement on a formulary? As we know, preferred formulary placement is often given to drugs with the highest price concession from the manufacturers. Will setting a UPL on payment for specialty pharmacy drugs to pharmacy benefit manager-owned specialty pharmacies affect that drug’s ability to be on the formulary? And again, how will the PDAB resolve the issue of compensating the provider for overhead costs associated with administering the medication?

Even more confusing questions remain. How will the UPL be enforced when a “purchase” or “sale” of the drug is made by an out-of-state entity somewhere along the supply chain? When ultimately the drug is purchased and delivered to a Colorado consumer by a Colorado provider/pharmacy, there are multiple points of the supply chain that may be outside of the jurisdiction of Colorado to enforce the UPL. This would create a misalignment in pricing among various supply chain entities.

While the sentiment behind creating PDABs is noble, it may end up having the unintended consequence of patients losing access to these drugs because of the perverse incentives involved in formulary construction or providers’ inability to afford to offer provider-administered drugs with UPLs.

Remember, expensive specialty pharmacy medications are already discounted greatly by manufacturers, often more than 50% to pharmacy benefit managers; and yet those cost savings are not passed on to the patients. Also, there is no oversight of 340B hospital contracted pharmacies to make sure that they pass those savings on to needy patients. Perhaps PDABs should address those issues, as well, if patient access to expensive medications is the goal.

Clearly, there are no easy answers. But with so many variables in the drug supply chain affecting patient access, concentrating only on one aspect may end up causing more harm than good. If your state is thinking of passing a PDAB, please let your legislators know that there are issues with this type of legislation that perhaps should be worked out before the bill is passed.
 

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

Since 1983, when I was a child and fled as a boat refugee from Vietnam with my mother, the international plight of displaced people has only worsened. From 1997 to 2022, the number of forcibly displaced people has more than tripled, growing from 34 million to more than 108 million.¹

Displaced people are designated as refugees only when they cross international borders and meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) definition as “persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life, physical integrity, or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence, or serious public disorder.”² There is a separate mandate by the United Nations for the aid of Palestinian refugees under the United Nations General Assembly’s United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).³ Of the displaced in 2022, more than 36 million were recognized as refugees under UNHCR and UNRWA mandates.¹ Of these, almost 50% were children, at 17.5 million.⁴ To make matters worse, worldwide children represent less than one-third of the population.⁴ Since 2022, the increase in refugeeism is mostly driven by Ukraine and Syria, though also significantly Afghanistan, Venezuela, Sudan, Myanmar, Congo, Somalia, and Central African Republic.⁴ Refugeeism is a growing problem that disproportionately impacts children through sheer number, and one suspects, given their greater overall vulnerabilities compared with adults, physical and mental health consequences.
 

Traumas of refugees compared with non-refugee immigrants

In terms of mental health, refugees are distinct from non-refugee immigrants in that they likely experience more severe psychosocial adversities from greater poverty, greater risk of family separation, and uncertainty of the asylum process.^5-8

From my own experience, this stems from the urgent nature of the refugee’s displacement, where they are often fleeing an immediate danger. My family had fled persecution from Communist forces and the social economic collapse that rendered Vietnam, for a time, one of the poorest in the world.⁹ Or, as my mother observed, “We had to leave because even doctors were starving.”

Refugees often have little preparation, have little legal protection since they are often criminalized, and are forced to endure dangerous conditions where they are vulnerable to smugglers and criminals who exploit their unprotected status. Once they arrive in their new country, they often do not have other family as social supports or resources. They themselves become the anchor for future legal and orderly immigration of their remaining family, given that they can extend their refugee status to those left behind.¹⁰ These non-refugee immigrants, unlike their refugee counterparts, are often flown to their new homes with more preparation, protecting them from dangerous conditions, and have the benefit of family who provide them with resources. As such, refugees tend to experience more traumatic life events than non-refugee immigrants. This was true in my family where those of us who initially escaped became the anchors to legally, and more safely, immigrate most of our family in Vietnam. We became their resources, likely making their acclimation smoother.
 

The mental health of refugee children and their caregivers

It is important to understand the stressors affecting the caregivers of children, since effective treatment of their mental health conditions can also benefit the children as well.¹¹ In fact, among the greatest protective factors for refugee children is the presence of an adult caregiver, suggesting that the child’s mental health is dependent on the caregivers.

Those children who are separated show much worse mental health sequalae.¹² As such, an understanding of the caregiver’s stressors is important. For example, when we were escaping Vietnam, my mom would protect me from our hardships by talking about our goals in America, minimizing our dangers by saying that we would be rewarded with things like a hamburger with its seemingly impossible amount of meat. Physically, my mother would always sleep with her arms around me and a knife hidden in order to ward off any attackers at night. When I was starving in the hull of a boat, having not eaten for days, my mother begged for food and gave me what she could get. And post-escape, my family focused on work and applied for aid for shelter and food, while encouraging us to invest in education, likely preventing involvement in criminal activities or gangs. Though overall, my family shielded me from the worst consequences, they also passed on their fears. One of my uncles had been killed by the police when he tried to escape, and so my family passed down a deep suspicion of authorities, whether they were the police or school principals. My mother had vivid memories of Communist re-education camps, which likely gave her a lasting fear that a Communist would find out our identities in America and re-capture us.
 

The mental health risk of refugees

Given that refugees tend to experience greater amounts of traumatic life events and a vast array of stressors sustained across years and even decades before, during, and after migration, it is no wonder they have much higher rates of mental health conditions, most predominantly PTSD and affective disorders.^13,14 They are at particular risk of developing psychoses because they are more likely to experience a range of physical, psychological, and psychosocial problems associated with adversities such as violence, discrimination, economic stress, and social isolation.¹³ For example, the period leading up to my escape consisted of decades of prolonged war: the French-Indochina from 1945 to 1954, then the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975) as well as the persecution and re-education camps afterward. What my family had to endure created a period of fear and loss into which I was born into in 1976. That year, my family had lost its fortune due to the Communist government seizing of our home and business, plunging us from a comfortable middle- to upper-class life to poverty. There was also widespread fear of systematic rape by the Communist victors. So my family endured great stress and the loss of a way of life leading up to our escape.

For the refugees, the escape itself is often a dangerous journey where, given its emergent nature, they are often exposed to the elements. We know about the current situation in Ukraine and Gaza, where children are fleeing from bombs and bullets. In my situation, we endured weeks of starvation crammed in the hull of boat as we forged through the Indian Ocean to the Philippines. One of my aunts, on a separate trip, perished because her boat had capsized, like so many others. Though impossible to verify, it has been estimated that up to 70% of Vietnamese refugees died during their escape.¹⁵ After the boat, my mother and I still had to brave Malaysian jungles and prisons, and then refugee camps for a year before we reached safety at an American Embassy in the Philippines. After we gained sponsorship to America, the traumas did not abate, but were only replaced by those of culture shock, poverty, and alienation. Taken by themselves, significant traumas exist in each phase of a refugee child’s escape, whether before, during, or after. These traumas are likely compounded since they are continuously layered and sustained across years, even decades. They affect not only the children, but their parents, and sometimes even a whole nation of people.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has been a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, or social upheavals. It is known that refugees are at greater risk for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders, presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after their migration. The writer uses his own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.

Dr. Nguyen is a second year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.

References

1. UNHCR. Global Trends. Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: The UN Refugee Agency, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugee concept under international law. Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.  https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf. Published March 8, 2018.

3. United Nations. (2023, November 11). The Question of Palestine. Un.org. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-general-assembly-renews-unrwa-mandate-press-release/

4. UNICEF. (2023, November 11). Child displacement. Data.unicef.org. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/displacement

5. Kinzie JD. Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcult Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;43(4):577-91. doi: 10.1177/1363461506070782.

6. Eaton W and Harrison G. Ethnic disadvantage and schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2000:(407):38-43. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.00007.x.

7. Gilliver SC et al. Recent research on the mental health of immigrants to Sweden: a literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Aug:24 Suppl 1:72-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku101.

8. Rapp MA et al. When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities. World Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;14(2):249-50. doi: 10.1002/wps.20221.

9. Cima, Ronald, ed. Vietnam: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.

10. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (2023, November 12). Refugees. Uscis.gov. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

11. Fazel M and Betancourt TS. (2018). Preventive mental health interventions for refugee children and adolescents in high-income settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

12. Fazel M et al. Mental health of displaced and refugee children resettled in high-income countries: risk and protective factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

13. Dapunt J et al. Refugees and psychosis: A review of the literature. Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 13;7(6):e1149. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.119.

14. Fazel M et al. Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7,000 refugees resettled in western countries: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005 Apr;365(9467):1309-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61027-6.

15. Rummel R. Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide. 1997. Table 6.1B,lines 730, 749-51.

Since 1983, when I was a child and fled as a boat refugee from Vietnam with my mother, the international plight of displaced people has only worsened. From 1997 to 2022, the number of forcibly displaced people has more than tripled, growing from 34 million to more than 108 million.¹

Displaced people are designated as refugees only when they cross international borders and meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) definition as “persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life, physical integrity, or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence, or serious public disorder.”² There is a separate mandate by the United Nations for the aid of Palestinian refugees under the United Nations General Assembly’s United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).³ Of the displaced in 2022, more than 36 million were recognized as refugees under UNHCR and UNRWA mandates.¹ Of these, almost 50% were children, at 17.5 million.⁴ To make matters worse, worldwide children represent less than one-third of the population.⁴ Since 2022, the increase in refugeeism is mostly driven by Ukraine and Syria, though also significantly Afghanistan, Venezuela, Sudan, Myanmar, Congo, Somalia, and Central African Republic.⁴ Refugeeism is a growing problem that disproportionately impacts children through sheer number, and one suspects, given their greater overall vulnerabilities compared with adults, physical and mental health consequences.
 

Traumas of refugees compared with non-refugee immigrants

In terms of mental health, refugees are distinct from non-refugee immigrants in that they likely experience more severe psychosocial adversities from greater poverty, greater risk of family separation, and uncertainty of the asylum process.^5-8

From my own experience, this stems from the urgent nature of the refugee’s displacement, where they are often fleeing an immediate danger. My family had fled persecution from Communist forces and the social economic collapse that rendered Vietnam, for a time, one of the poorest in the world.⁹ Or, as my mother observed, “We had to leave because even doctors were starving.”

Refugees often have little preparation, have little legal protection since they are often criminalized, and are forced to endure dangerous conditions where they are vulnerable to smugglers and criminals who exploit their unprotected status. Once they arrive in their new country, they often do not have other family as social supports or resources. They themselves become the anchor for future legal and orderly immigration of their remaining family, given that they can extend their refugee status to those left behind.¹⁰ These non-refugee immigrants, unlike their refugee counterparts, are often flown to their new homes with more preparation, protecting them from dangerous conditions, and have the benefit of family who provide them with resources. As such, refugees tend to experience more traumatic life events than non-refugee immigrants. This was true in my family where those of us who initially escaped became the anchors to legally, and more safely, immigrate most of our family in Vietnam. We became their resources, likely making their acclimation smoother.
 

The mental health of refugee children and their caregivers

It is important to understand the stressors affecting the caregivers of children, since effective treatment of their mental health conditions can also benefit the children as well.¹¹ In fact, among the greatest protective factors for refugee children is the presence of an adult caregiver, suggesting that the child’s mental health is dependent on the caregivers.

Those children who are separated show much worse mental health sequalae.¹² As such, an understanding of the caregiver’s stressors is important. For example, when we were escaping Vietnam, my mom would protect me from our hardships by talking about our goals in America, minimizing our dangers by saying that we would be rewarded with things like a hamburger with its seemingly impossible amount of meat. Physically, my mother would always sleep with her arms around me and a knife hidden in order to ward off any attackers at night. When I was starving in the hull of a boat, having not eaten for days, my mother begged for food and gave me what she could get. And post-escape, my family focused on work and applied for aid for shelter and food, while encouraging us to invest in education, likely preventing involvement in criminal activities or gangs. Though overall, my family shielded me from the worst consequences, they also passed on their fears. One of my uncles had been killed by the police when he tried to escape, and so my family passed down a deep suspicion of authorities, whether they were the police or school principals. My mother had vivid memories of Communist re-education camps, which likely gave her a lasting fear that a Communist would find out our identities in America and re-capture us.
 

The mental health risk of refugees

Given that refugees tend to experience greater amounts of traumatic life events and a vast array of stressors sustained across years and even decades before, during, and after migration, it is no wonder they have much higher rates of mental health conditions, most predominantly PTSD and affective disorders.^13,14 They are at particular risk of developing psychoses because they are more likely to experience a range of physical, psychological, and psychosocial problems associated with adversities such as violence, discrimination, economic stress, and social isolation.¹³ For example, the period leading up to my escape consisted of decades of prolonged war: the French-Indochina from 1945 to 1954, then the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975) as well as the persecution and re-education camps afterward. What my family had to endure created a period of fear and loss into which I was born into in 1976. That year, my family had lost its fortune due to the Communist government seizing of our home and business, plunging us from a comfortable middle- to upper-class life to poverty. There was also widespread fear of systematic rape by the Communist victors. So my family endured great stress and the loss of a way of life leading up to our escape.

For the refugees, the escape itself is often a dangerous journey where, given its emergent nature, they are often exposed to the elements. We know about the current situation in Ukraine and Gaza, where children are fleeing from bombs and bullets. In my situation, we endured weeks of starvation crammed in the hull of boat as we forged through the Indian Ocean to the Philippines. One of my aunts, on a separate trip, perished because her boat had capsized, like so many others. Though impossible to verify, it has been estimated that up to 70% of Vietnamese refugees died during their escape.¹⁵ After the boat, my mother and I still had to brave Malaysian jungles and prisons, and then refugee camps for a year before we reached safety at an American Embassy in the Philippines. After we gained sponsorship to America, the traumas did not abate, but were only replaced by those of culture shock, poverty, and alienation. Taken by themselves, significant traumas exist in each phase of a refugee child’s escape, whether before, during, or after. These traumas are likely compounded since they are continuously layered and sustained across years, even decades. They affect not only the children, but their parents, and sometimes even a whole nation of people.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has been a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, or social upheavals. It is known that refugees are at greater risk for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders, presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after their migration. The writer uses his own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.

Dr. Nguyen is a second year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.

References

1. UNHCR. Global Trends. Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: The UN Refugee Agency, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugee concept under international law. Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.  https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf. Published March 8, 2018.

3. United Nations. (2023, November 11). The Question of Palestine. Un.org. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-general-assembly-renews-unrwa-mandate-press-release/

4. UNICEF. (2023, November 11). Child displacement. Data.unicef.org. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/displacement

5. Kinzie JD. Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcult Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;43(4):577-91. doi: 10.1177/1363461506070782.

6. Eaton W and Harrison G. Ethnic disadvantage and schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2000:(407):38-43. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.00007.x.

7. Gilliver SC et al. Recent research on the mental health of immigrants to Sweden: a literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Aug:24 Suppl 1:72-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku101.

8. Rapp MA et al. When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities. World Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;14(2):249-50. doi: 10.1002/wps.20221.

9. Cima, Ronald, ed. Vietnam: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.

10. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (2023, November 12). Refugees. Uscis.gov. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

11. Fazel M and Betancourt TS. (2018). Preventive mental health interventions for refugee children and adolescents in high-income settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

12. Fazel M et al. Mental health of displaced and refugee children resettled in high-income countries: risk and protective factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

13. Dapunt J et al. Refugees and psychosis: A review of the literature. Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 13;7(6):e1149. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.119.

14. Fazel M et al. Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7,000 refugees resettled in western countries: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005 Apr;365(9467):1309-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61027-6.

15. Rummel R. Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide. 1997. Table 6.1B,lines 730, 749-51.

Since 1983, when I was a child and fled as a boat refugee from Vietnam with my mother, the international plight of displaced people has only worsened. From 1997 to 2022, the number of forcibly displaced people has more than tripled, growing from 34 million to more than 108 million.¹

Displaced people are designated as refugees only when they cross international borders and meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) definition as “persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life, physical integrity, or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence, or serious public disorder.”² There is a separate mandate by the United Nations for the aid of Palestinian refugees under the United Nations General Assembly’s United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).³ Of the displaced in 2022, more than 36 million were recognized as refugees under UNHCR and UNRWA mandates.¹ Of these, almost 50% were children, at 17.5 million.⁴ To make matters worse, worldwide children represent less than one-third of the population.⁴ Since 2022, the increase in refugeeism is mostly driven by Ukraine and Syria, though also significantly Afghanistan, Venezuela, Sudan, Myanmar, Congo, Somalia, and Central African Republic.⁴ Refugeeism is a growing problem that disproportionately impacts children through sheer number, and one suspects, given their greater overall vulnerabilities compared with adults, physical and mental health consequences.
 

Traumas of refugees compared with non-refugee immigrants

In terms of mental health, refugees are distinct from non-refugee immigrants in that they likely experience more severe psychosocial adversities from greater poverty, greater risk of family separation, and uncertainty of the asylum process.^5-8

From my own experience, this stems from the urgent nature of the refugee’s displacement, where they are often fleeing an immediate danger. My family had fled persecution from Communist forces and the social economic collapse that rendered Vietnam, for a time, one of the poorest in the world.⁹ Or, as my mother observed, “We had to leave because even doctors were starving.”

Refugees often have little preparation, have little legal protection since they are often criminalized, and are forced to endure dangerous conditions where they are vulnerable to smugglers and criminals who exploit their unprotected status. Once they arrive in their new country, they often do not have other family as social supports or resources. They themselves become the anchor for future legal and orderly immigration of their remaining family, given that they can extend their refugee status to those left behind.¹⁰ These non-refugee immigrants, unlike their refugee counterparts, are often flown to their new homes with more preparation, protecting them from dangerous conditions, and have the benefit of family who provide them with resources. As such, refugees tend to experience more traumatic life events than non-refugee immigrants. This was true in my family where those of us who initially escaped became the anchors to legally, and more safely, immigrate most of our family in Vietnam. We became their resources, likely making their acclimation smoother.
 

The mental health of refugee children and their caregivers

It is important to understand the stressors affecting the caregivers of children, since effective treatment of their mental health conditions can also benefit the children as well.¹¹ In fact, among the greatest protective factors for refugee children is the presence of an adult caregiver, suggesting that the child’s mental health is dependent on the caregivers.

Those children who are separated show much worse mental health sequalae.¹² As such, an understanding of the caregiver’s stressors is important. For example, when we were escaping Vietnam, my mom would protect me from our hardships by talking about our goals in America, minimizing our dangers by saying that we would be rewarded with things like a hamburger with its seemingly impossible amount of meat. Physically, my mother would always sleep with her arms around me and a knife hidden in order to ward off any attackers at night. When I was starving in the hull of a boat, having not eaten for days, my mother begged for food and gave me what she could get. And post-escape, my family focused on work and applied for aid for shelter and food, while encouraging us to invest in education, likely preventing involvement in criminal activities or gangs. Though overall, my family shielded me from the worst consequences, they also passed on their fears. One of my uncles had been killed by the police when he tried to escape, and so my family passed down a deep suspicion of authorities, whether they were the police or school principals. My mother had vivid memories of Communist re-education camps, which likely gave her a lasting fear that a Communist would find out our identities in America and re-capture us.
 

The mental health risk of refugees

Given that refugees tend to experience greater amounts of traumatic life events and a vast array of stressors sustained across years and even decades before, during, and after migration, it is no wonder they have much higher rates of mental health conditions, most predominantly PTSD and affective disorders.^13,14 They are at particular risk of developing psychoses because they are more likely to experience a range of physical, psychological, and psychosocial problems associated with adversities such as violence, discrimination, economic stress, and social isolation.¹³ For example, the period leading up to my escape consisted of decades of prolonged war: the French-Indochina from 1945 to 1954, then the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975) as well as the persecution and re-education camps afterward. What my family had to endure created a period of fear and loss into which I was born into in 1976. That year, my family had lost its fortune due to the Communist government seizing of our home and business, plunging us from a comfortable middle- to upper-class life to poverty. There was also widespread fear of systematic rape by the Communist victors. So my family endured great stress and the loss of a way of life leading up to our escape.

For the refugees, the escape itself is often a dangerous journey where, given its emergent nature, they are often exposed to the elements. We know about the current situation in Ukraine and Gaza, where children are fleeing from bombs and bullets. In my situation, we endured weeks of starvation crammed in the hull of boat as we forged through the Indian Ocean to the Philippines. One of my aunts, on a separate trip, perished because her boat had capsized, like so many others. Though impossible to verify, it has been estimated that up to 70% of Vietnamese refugees died during their escape.¹⁵ After the boat, my mother and I still had to brave Malaysian jungles and prisons, and then refugee camps for a year before we reached safety at an American Embassy in the Philippines. After we gained sponsorship to America, the traumas did not abate, but were only replaced by those of culture shock, poverty, and alienation. Taken by themselves, significant traumas exist in each phase of a refugee child’s escape, whether before, during, or after. These traumas are likely compounded since they are continuously layered and sustained across years, even decades. They affect not only the children, but their parents, and sometimes even a whole nation of people.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has been a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, or social upheavals. It is known that refugees are at greater risk for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders, presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after their migration. The writer uses his own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.

Dr. Nguyen is a second year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.

References

1. UNHCR. Global Trends. Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: The UN Refugee Agency, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The refugee concept under international law. Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.  https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf. Published March 8, 2018.

3. United Nations. (2023, November 11). The Question of Palestine. Un.org. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-general-assembly-renews-unrwa-mandate-press-release/

4. UNICEF. (2023, November 11). Child displacement. Data.unicef.org. https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-migration-and-displacement/displacement

5. Kinzie JD. Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcult Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;43(4):577-91. doi: 10.1177/1363461506070782.

6. Eaton W and Harrison G. Ethnic disadvantage and schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2000:(407):38-43. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.00007.x.

7. Gilliver SC et al. Recent research on the mental health of immigrants to Sweden: a literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Aug:24 Suppl 1:72-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku101.

8. Rapp MA et al. When local poverty is more important than your income: Mental health in minorities in inner cities. World Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;14(2):249-50. doi: 10.1002/wps.20221.

9. Cima, Ronald, ed. Vietnam: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.

10. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (2023, November 12). Refugees. Uscis.gov. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/refugees

11. Fazel M and Betancourt TS. (2018). Preventive mental health interventions for refugee children and adolescents in high-income settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-32. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

12. Fazel M et al. Mental health of displaced and refugee children resettled in high-income countries: risk and protective factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

13. Dapunt J et al. Refugees and psychosis: A review of the literature. Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Jun 13;7(6):e1149. doi: 10.1038/tp.2017.119.

14. Fazel M et al. Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7,000 refugees resettled in western countries: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005 Apr;365(9467):1309-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61027-6.

15. Rummel R. Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide. 1997. Table 6.1B,lines 730, 749-51.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

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.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

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.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

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.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

Pelvic floor disorders are embarrassing, annoying, painful, and extremely disruptive to a woman’s life, often resulting in depression, anxiety, and a poor self-image. According to a 2021 study, approximately 75% of peripartum women and 68% of postmenopausal women feel insufficiently informed about pelvic floor disorders.¹

Consequently, a large majority of women are not seeking care for these disorders. This drives health care costs higher as women wait until their symptoms are unbearable until finally seeking help. Many of these women don’t know they have options.
 

Who is at risk?

To understand the scope of this growing problem, it is vital to see who is most at risk. Parity, age, body mass index, and race are significant factors, although any woman can have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD).

Urinary incontinence (UI), pelvic floor prolapses (POP), and fecal incontinence (FI) are three of the most common pelvic floor disorders. Pregnancy and childbirth, specifically a vaginal birth, greatly contribute to this population’s risk. In pregnancy, the increase in plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate, along with hormone changes impacting urethral pressure and the growing gravid uterus, cause urinary frequency and nocturia. This can result in urinary incontinence during and after pregnancy.

Indeed, 76% of women with urinary incontinence at 3 months postpartum report it 12 years later.¹ Third- and fourth-degree lacerations during delivery are uncommon (3.3%), but can cause fecal incontinence, often requiring surgery.¹ Independently, all of these symptoms have been correlated with sexual dysfunction and postpartum depression.

One-third of all women and 50% of women over the age of 55 are currently affected by a PFD. Contributing factors include hormone changes with menopause that affect the pelvic floor muscles and connective tissue, prior childbirth and pregnancy, constipation, heavy lifting, prior pelvic surgery, and obesity. These women are vulnerable to pelvic organ prolapse from the weakened pelvic floor muscles. They will often present with a vague complaint of “something is protruding out of my vagina.” These women also present with urinary incontinence or leakage, proclaiming they have to wear a diaper or a pad. Without proper knowledge, aging women think these issues are normal and nothing can be done.

The woman with a BMI above 30 may have damaged tissues supporting the uterus and bladder, weakening those organs, and causing a prolapse. Incontinence is a result of poor muscle and connective tissue of the vagina that support the urethra. Obese women can suffer from both urinary and bowel incontinence. By the year 2030, it is projected that one in two adults will be obese.² This will greatly impact health care costs.

To date, there is little conclusive evidence on the impact of race on pelvic floor disorders. A study in Scientific Reports did find that Asian women have a significantly lower risk for any PFD.² Some research has found that Black and Hispanic women have less risk for UI but are at higher risk for FI and other PFDs.³ Understandably, women of certain cultures and demographics may be less likely to report incontinence to their clinicians and may be less informed as well.
 

What can we do?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has acknowledged the deficiencies and lack of standard care of pelvic health in pregnancy and postpartum.¹ There are differences in definitions across clinical practice and in the medical literature. Inconsistent patient reporting of PFD symptoms occurs due to nonstandard methods (questionnaire, interview, physical exam). With the often-short time allotted for visits with health care providers, women may neglect to discuss their symptoms, especially if they have other more pressing matters to address.

What would really help improve treatment of PFDs is early education in pregnancy. At the first OB appointment, a pregnant woman should be given information on what are normal and abnormal symptoms, from the beginning through postpartum. At each visit, she should be given ample opportunity to discuss symptoms of pelvic health. Clinicians should continue assessing, questioning, and discussing treatment options as applicable. Women need to know that early recognition and treatment can have a positive affect on their pelvic health for years to come.

ACOG recommends all postpartum patients see an obstetric provider within 3 weeks of delivery.¹ Most are seen at 6 weeks. Pelvic health should be discussed at this final postpartum appointment, including normal and abnormal symptoms within the next few months and beyond.

Regardless of pregnancy status, women need a safe and supportive place to describe their pelvic floor issues. There is a validated questionnaire tool available for postpartum, but one is desperately needed for all women, especially women at risk. A pelvic health assessment must be included in every annual exam.

Women need to know there are multiple treatment modalities including simple exercises, physical therapy, a variety of pessaries, medications, and surgery. Sometimes, all that is needed are a few lifestyle changes: avoiding pushing or straining while urinating or having a bowel movement, maintaining a healthy diet rich in high fiber foods, and drinking plenty of fluids.

The National Public Health Service in the United Kingdom recently announced a government-funded program for pelvic health services to begin in April 2024.⁴ This program will address the pelvic floor needs, assessment, education and treatment for women after childbirth.

There are multiple clinics in the United States focusing on women’s health that feature urogynecologists – specialists in pelvic floor disorders. These specialists do a thorough health and physical assessment, explain types of pelvic floor disorders, and suggest appropriate treatment options. Most importantly, urogynecologists listen and address a woman’s concerns and fears.

There is no reason for women to feel compromised at any age. We, as health care providers, just need to assess, educate, treat, and follow up.

Ms. Barnett is a registered nurse in the department of obstetrics, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, Burlingame, Calif. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Madsen AM et al. Recognition and management of pelvic floor disorders in pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;48(3):571-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.009.

2. Kenne KA et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in adult women being seen in a primary care setting and associated risk factors. Sci Rep. 2022 June; (12):9878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13501-w.

3. Nygaard I et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

4. United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care. “National pelvic health service to support women.” 2023 Oct 19.

I am not a marketing person. I never will be. I don’t think like one.

A current article on FiercePharma talked about Boehringer Ingelheim’s recent “rebranding,” which involved (among other things) changing the blues in its logo and ads to greens.

Maybe someone else out there would notice that change, but I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t read about it. Nor am I sure what affect it would have on me, if any. But I’m sure they paid psychologists and marketing teams quite a bit to make sure it was a good idea.

Likewise, when AbbVie repackaged Ubrelvy from 10 to a package to 16, the company felt the need to change the design of the sample boxes (which are also now green). I’m pretty sure none of my patients noticed. The only reason I did is because I’m the one who stocks my sample shelf here.

Abbvie and Boehringer aren’t alone in this, of course. Pharmaceutical marketing is big business. I understand the companies want doctors and patients to know about their products. In that respect they’re no different from General Motors or Kellogg’s.

But pharmaceuticals fall into a different area. Kellogg’s products don’t require a middleman handing you a script allowing you to buy corn flakes, so although the products are sold to the public, they also have to be sold to a person who isn’t buying them – the prescriber.

Not all these ads are bad, of course. At best they raise public awareness of different health conditions and the options to treat them. At worst ... well, currently there are several movies out there about the results of marketing done by the Sackler family and Purdue.

To me, most pharmaceutical ads look the same. They show happy people going about their lives, with the impression being that they couldn’t have done this without the benefit of the drug being marketed.

To a large extent I can’t knock that. Pharmaceuticals are amazing things. They’ve contributed dramatically to human health, life quality, and longevity.

But would I, or most people, notice if the lettering in the ads were blue, green, or yellow? Probably not. Someone with a background in the psychology of marketing would be able to show me data on how different colors affect our perceptions, but I still look at this and wonder if the money could have been better spent.

Maybe that’s why I’m not in marketing. I tend to be on the practical side. The idea of hiring a celebrity to endorse a migraine (or pretty much any) medication would never have occurred to me. I have no idea how much Pfizer paid Lady Gaga to sell Nurtec, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more than I’ll earn this year. Probably ever.

Like most neurologists I’m hopelessly left-brained. But I still wonder how much things like this really make a difference.

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

I am not a marketing person. I never will be. I don’t think like one.

A current article on FiercePharma talked about Boehringer Ingelheim’s recent “rebranding,” which involved (among other things) changing the blues in its logo and ads to greens.

Maybe someone else out there would notice that change, but I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t read about it. Nor am I sure what affect it would have on me, if any. But I’m sure they paid psychologists and marketing teams quite a bit to make sure it was a good idea.

Likewise, when AbbVie repackaged Ubrelvy from 10 to a package to 16, the company felt the need to change the design of the sample boxes (which are also now green). I’m pretty sure none of my patients noticed. The only reason I did is because I’m the one who stocks my sample shelf here.

Abbvie and Boehringer aren’t alone in this, of course. Pharmaceutical marketing is big business. I understand the companies want doctors and patients to know about their products. In that respect they’re no different from General Motors or Kellogg’s.

But pharmaceuticals fall into a different area. Kellogg’s products don’t require a middleman handing you a script allowing you to buy corn flakes, so although the products are sold to the public, they also have to be sold to a person who isn’t buying them – the prescriber.

Not all these ads are bad, of course. At best they raise public awareness of different health conditions and the options to treat them. At worst ... well, currently there are several movies out there about the results of marketing done by the Sackler family and Purdue.

To me, most pharmaceutical ads look the same. They show happy people going about their lives, with the impression being that they couldn’t have done this without the benefit of the drug being marketed.

To a large extent I can’t knock that. Pharmaceuticals are amazing things. They’ve contributed dramatically to human health, life quality, and longevity.

But would I, or most people, notice if the lettering in the ads were blue, green, or yellow? Probably not. Someone with a background in the psychology of marketing would be able to show me data on how different colors affect our perceptions, but I still look at this and wonder if the money could have been better spent.

Maybe that’s why I’m not in marketing. I tend to be on the practical side. The idea of hiring a celebrity to endorse a migraine (or pretty much any) medication would never have occurred to me. I have no idea how much Pfizer paid Lady Gaga to sell Nurtec, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more than I’ll earn this year. Probably ever.

Like most neurologists I’m hopelessly left-brained. But I still wonder how much things like this really make a difference.

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

I am not a marketing person. I never will be. I don’t think like one.

A current article on FiercePharma talked about Boehringer Ingelheim’s recent “rebranding,” which involved (among other things) changing the blues in its logo and ads to greens.

Maybe someone else out there would notice that change, but I wouldn’t have if I hadn’t read about it. Nor am I sure what affect it would have on me, if any. But I’m sure they paid psychologists and marketing teams quite a bit to make sure it was a good idea.

Likewise, when AbbVie repackaged Ubrelvy from 10 to a package to 16, the company felt the need to change the design of the sample boxes (which are also now green). I’m pretty sure none of my patients noticed. The only reason I did is because I’m the one who stocks my sample shelf here.

Abbvie and Boehringer aren’t alone in this, of course. Pharmaceutical marketing is big business. I understand the companies want doctors and patients to know about their products. In that respect they’re no different from General Motors or Kellogg’s.

But pharmaceuticals fall into a different area. Kellogg’s products don’t require a middleman handing you a script allowing you to buy corn flakes, so although the products are sold to the public, they also have to be sold to a person who isn’t buying them – the prescriber.

Not all these ads are bad, of course. At best they raise public awareness of different health conditions and the options to treat them. At worst ... well, currently there are several movies out there about the results of marketing done by the Sackler family and Purdue.

To me, most pharmaceutical ads look the same. They show happy people going about their lives, with the impression being that they couldn’t have done this without the benefit of the drug being marketed.

To a large extent I can’t knock that. Pharmaceuticals are amazing things. They’ve contributed dramatically to human health, life quality, and longevity.

But would I, or most people, notice if the lettering in the ads were blue, green, or yellow? Probably not. Someone with a background in the psychology of marketing would be able to show me data on how different colors affect our perceptions, but I still look at this and wonder if the money could have been better spent.

Maybe that’s why I’m not in marketing. I tend to be on the practical side. The idea of hiring a celebrity to endorse a migraine (or pretty much any) medication would never have occurred to me. I have no idea how much Pfizer paid Lady Gaga to sell Nurtec, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more than I’ll earn this year. Probably ever.

Like most neurologists I’m hopelessly left-brained. But I still wonder how much things like this really make a difference.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important for doctors to ask about erections. Not only do our patients and their partners care about them, but they are a marker for overall health. I mean it. Penis problems are very common and are an early sign that patients could have a cardiac event. Think about it: Clogging the arteries of the heart is called a heart attack; clogging the arteries to the penis is a penis attack, or as doctors like to call it, erectile dysfunction.

The arteries to the penis are only 1 mm in diameter. They develop plaque and clog the circulation long before the 3-mm cardiac arteries. So, it’s very important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about erection health. And I’ll be honest: It’s easier to talk to patients about how lifestyle is affecting their penis health than it is to discuss how lifestyle affects longevity or prevents cancer. I get a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them what it’s doing to their penises.

It can be challenging for doctors and patients to talk about penises. It doesn’t come naturally for many of us. If a 20-year-old comes in to my office with his 85-year-old grandfather and they both say their penises aren’t working, how do you figure out what’s going on? Do they even have the same thing wrong with them?

Here’s a fun and helpful tool that I use in my office. It’s called the Erection Hardness Score. It was developed around the time that Viagra came out, in 1998. It’s been game-changing for me to get patients more comfortable talking about their erection issues.

Courtesy Rachel S. Rubin, MD

Dr. Rubin is assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She disclosed financial relationships with Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo Pharmaceuticals; has served as a speaker for Sprout; and has received research grant from Maternal Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important for doctors to ask about erections. Not only do our patients and their partners care about them, but they are a marker for overall health. I mean it. Penis problems are very common and are an early sign that patients could have a cardiac event. Think about it: Clogging the arteries of the heart is called a heart attack; clogging the arteries to the penis is a penis attack, or as doctors like to call it, erectile dysfunction.

The arteries to the penis are only 1 mm in diameter. They develop plaque and clog the circulation long before the 3-mm cardiac arteries. So, it’s very important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about erection health. And I’ll be honest: It’s easier to talk to patients about how lifestyle is affecting their penis health than it is to discuss how lifestyle affects longevity or prevents cancer. I get a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them what it’s doing to their penises.

It can be challenging for doctors and patients to talk about penises. It doesn’t come naturally for many of us. If a 20-year-old comes in to my office with his 85-year-old grandfather and they both say their penises aren’t working, how do you figure out what’s going on? Do they even have the same thing wrong with them?

Here’s a fun and helpful tool that I use in my office. It’s called the Erection Hardness Score. It was developed around the time that Viagra came out, in 1998. It’s been game-changing for me to get patients more comfortable talking about their erection issues.

Courtesy Rachel S. Rubin, MD

Dr. Rubin is assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She disclosed financial relationships with Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo Pharmaceuticals; has served as a speaker for Sprout; and has received research grant from Maternal Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important for doctors to ask about erections. Not only do our patients and their partners care about them, but they are a marker for overall health. I mean it. Penis problems are very common and are an early sign that patients could have a cardiac event. Think about it: Clogging the arteries of the heart is called a heart attack; clogging the arteries to the penis is a penis attack, or as doctors like to call it, erectile dysfunction.

The arteries to the penis are only 1 mm in diameter. They develop plaque and clog the circulation long before the 3-mm cardiac arteries. So, it’s very important for primary care doctors to talk to their patients about erection health. And I’ll be honest: It’s easier to talk to patients about how lifestyle is affecting their penis health than it is to discuss how lifestyle affects longevity or prevents cancer. I get a lot of men to quit smoking because I tell them what it’s doing to their penises.

It can be challenging for doctors and patients to talk about penises. It doesn’t come naturally for many of us. If a 20-year-old comes in to my office with his 85-year-old grandfather and they both say their penises aren’t working, how do you figure out what’s going on? Do they even have the same thing wrong with them?

Here’s a fun and helpful tool that I use in my office. It’s called the Erection Hardness Score. It was developed around the time that Viagra came out, in 1998. It’s been game-changing for me to get patients more comfortable talking about their erection issues.

Courtesy Rachel S. Rubin, MD

Dr. Rubin is assistant clinical professor, department of urology, Georgetown University, Washington. She disclosed financial relationships with Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo Pharmaceuticals; has served as a speaker for Sprout; and has received research grant from Maternal Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I am far from the only doctor, and certainly far from the only oncologist, to recently comment on the topic of Maintenance of Certification. Of course, this is happening in a wider debate about our relationship as subspecialists to the American Board of Internal Medicine, and what they deem acceptable for the recertification of doctors in practice.

My take is that every oncologist is already engaged in lifelong learning. One of the things I tell my patients is that if I practiced exactly the way I was trained to practice — and I had a very good fellowship program with superb faculty – if I practiced the way they taught me, it would now be malpractice. I finished my fellowship in 2012, just over a decade ago. The rate of progress in the interim is simply staggering. It looks so different now than it did then.

For instance, 2011 was my first experience ever using a form of immunotherapy. It was an anti-CTLA4 agent, ipilimumab, and I was treating metastatic melanoma. I learned in that instance just how effective these drugs can be, but also how toxic they can be. Ever since then, I’ve been refining my use of immunotherapy. We do that iteratively. We do that as we encounter patients and as we try to meet their needs.

I do understand that the ABIM is saying they want an independent governing body to legislate that process. I think the reason this is stuck in the craw of so many oncologists is that we demonstrate our commitment to continuing medical education all the time.

I’m recording this in my office, which is separate from the space where I see patients. I see patients in a different group of exam rooms for their privacy and it’s a better setup for aspects of the physical encounter. Not a single patient has ever asked to come into my office and see my diplomas, and I sometimes wonder if I keep them here mostly as a visual cue to myself, sort of an antidote to ward off imposter syndrome and remind myself, Oh yeah – I earned these. I earned these through formal training.

Then something happens once you finish your training, whether it’s residency or fellowship, and you become an attending. I think you feel a weight of responsibility, the responsibility of independent learning. All of us are doing this. We have to do this. The field is moving along at such a rapid clip that it’s essentially built into what we do that we are going to keep up. In fact, channels such as the various aspects of social media are a way I curate my own information feed so I can stay up to speed and not feel like I’m drowning in a deluge of new data.

But what’s hard to demonstrate to the ABIM is that [this learning] is already happening. I think we can do it if we submit our records of CME credits that we formally accrue. The reason this is such an almost insult to oncologists in practice is because it is a necessary part of our day-to-day existence to keep apprised of developments so we can apply them to patient care.

One litmus test of attending a medical conference like the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology is to ask oneself, When I go back to clinic, is this meeting going to change the way that I take care of patients? The answer almost invariably these days is yes. I go to multiple meetings per year, and I think it’s the exception, not the rule, that I return home and nothing changes in my management patterns. Again, this process is happening whether the ABIM recognizes it or not.

Lastly, I sat down in the fall of 2022 and I did my recertification. I looked at the span of all the things that had happened between 2012, when I first sat for my board examination in medical oncology, and 2022. It was staggering. I think the reason that it wasn’t such an overwhelming amount of information to review is that I had actually been accreting it slowly and gradually, month by month, year by year throughout that decade.

Again, it’s necessary that the ABIM hear us, hear oncologists, and know that of all the medical subspecialties they govern, it is basically already an essential task of our day-to-day professional existence that we engage in lifelong learning. To suggest otherwise really paints us as outdated. The reason that matters so much is that if we’re not up-to-date, then we are underserving our patients.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, is director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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