Video

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

Vidyard Video

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

Encourage your patients to visit the AGA GI Patient Center for education by specialists for patients about GERD symptoms and treatments at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

Vidyard Video

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

Encourage your patients to visit the AGA GI Patient Center for education by specialists for patients about GERD symptoms and treatments at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

Vidyard Video

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

Encourage your patients to visit the AGA GI Patient Center for education by specialists for patients about GERD symptoms and treatments at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/gastroesophageal-reflux-disease-gerd.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Women in health care are second only to those in arts and entertainment in contacting* the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, according to two founding members of TIME’S UP Healthcare, which was recently launched to address gender inequity and sexual harassment in medicine.

Vidyard Video

“As a psychiatrist who has had physicians as patients ... I’d heard this stuff, and I knew it existed,” said Jessica Gold, MD. But to hear it from people who had choked it down ... I understand what it’s like to be a pharma rep and be told that you have to look pretty or wear a thong to get a doctor to look at you.”

In this video, Dr. Gold and Kali D. Cyrus, MD, MPH, sat down at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association and discussed the goals of TIME’S UP Healthcare and the need to bring transgressions – mainly against women – out in the open. The group also wants to advocate for establishing meaningful standards and policies.

“I feel like [psychiatrists are] trained to look for these kinds of dynamics. We should be trained to intervene ... My dream is [to address] some of the more subtle microaggressions that happen,” Dr. Cyrus said.

She wants to make sure that all women are equitably represented. We need “a procedure in place where people can voice their concerns.”

All of the group’s founding members are women, and men also need to participate as allies. “There are men who want to mentor women, Dr. Gold said. “We do need men to support us ... We also want to hear about their experiences,” Dr. Cyrus said.

Dr. Gold is assistant professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Cyrus is an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and offers consultation services for conflict management of issues related to identity differences.

[email protected]

*This story was updated 6/3/2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – Women in health care are second only to those in arts and entertainment in contacting* the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, according to two founding members of TIME’S UP Healthcare, which was recently launched to address gender inequity and sexual harassment in medicine.

Vidyard Video

“As a psychiatrist who has had physicians as patients ... I’d heard this stuff, and I knew it existed,” said Jessica Gold, MD. But to hear it from people who had choked it down ... I understand what it’s like to be a pharma rep and be told that you have to look pretty or wear a thong to get a doctor to look at you.”

In this video, Dr. Gold and Kali D. Cyrus, MD, MPH, sat down at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association and discussed the goals of TIME’S UP Healthcare and the need to bring transgressions – mainly against women – out in the open. The group also wants to advocate for establishing meaningful standards and policies.

“I feel like [psychiatrists are] trained to look for these kinds of dynamics. We should be trained to intervene ... My dream is [to address] some of the more subtle microaggressions that happen,” Dr. Cyrus said.

She wants to make sure that all women are equitably represented. We need “a procedure in place where people can voice their concerns.”

All of the group’s founding members are women, and men also need to participate as allies. “There are men who want to mentor women, Dr. Gold said. “We do need men to support us ... We also want to hear about their experiences,” Dr. Cyrus said.

Dr. Gold is assistant professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Cyrus is an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and offers consultation services for conflict management of issues related to identity differences.

[email protected]

*This story was updated 6/3/2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – Women in health care are second only to those in arts and entertainment in contacting* the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, according to two founding members of TIME’S UP Healthcare, which was recently launched to address gender inequity and sexual harassment in medicine.

Vidyard Video

“As a psychiatrist who has had physicians as patients ... I’d heard this stuff, and I knew it existed,” said Jessica Gold, MD. But to hear it from people who had choked it down ... I understand what it’s like to be a pharma rep and be told that you have to look pretty or wear a thong to get a doctor to look at you.”

In this video, Dr. Gold and Kali D. Cyrus, MD, MPH, sat down at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association and discussed the goals of TIME’S UP Healthcare and the need to bring transgressions – mainly against women – out in the open. The group also wants to advocate for establishing meaningful standards and policies.

“I feel like [psychiatrists are] trained to look for these kinds of dynamics. We should be trained to intervene ... My dream is [to address] some of the more subtle microaggressions that happen,” Dr. Cyrus said.

She wants to make sure that all women are equitably represented. We need “a procedure in place where people can voice their concerns.”

All of the group’s founding members are women, and men also need to participate as allies. “There are men who want to mentor women, Dr. Gold said. “We do need men to support us ... We also want to hear about their experiences,” Dr. Cyrus said.

Dr. Gold is assistant professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Cyrus is an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and offers consultation services for conflict management of issues related to identity differences.

[email protected]

*This story was updated 6/3/2019.

CHICAGO – In 2014, the average time from diagnosis to treatment initiation for new cancer patients at the Cleveland Clinic was 29-41 days, depending on whether the patient was diagnosed internally or externally. That figure was not acceptable, said Brian J. Bolwell, MD, chairman of the Cleveland Clinic’s Taussig Cancer Institute.

Since then, the time-to-treat metric has improved dramatically, dropping 33%. Today, time to treat for new cancer patients is 25-31 days, depending on the site of diagnosis.

To get there, leaders at the cancer center examined the causes of delay within each of their disease programs. The analysis revealed that less than 20% of the time it was patient preferences that slowed down the initiation of treatment, but that more than 80% of the time the delay was on the part of their institution.

Dr. Bolwell said this led them to start tracking every newly diagnosed patient who came through the cancer center to ensure they didn’t fall through the cracks, and that they were treated as rapidly as possible.

But figuring out how to get patients to treatment quicker depended on the type of cancer they had, since each type of cancer had different challenges and different points of entry to the health care system.

“So for breast cancer, it turns out a lot of the challenges might be coordination of surgery because sometimes a general surgeon has to work with a reconstructive-plastic surgeon and coordinating the surgical schedules might drastically lengthen time to treat,” he said during an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

They helped address that problem by scheduling breast cancer patients for surgery by the next available operating room slot, rather than doing the scheduling by surgeon.

There are additional barriers to achieving a rapid time to treat standard, including prior authorization, Dr. Bolwell said. But they are continuing to chip away at the metric, working within each cancer type to lower the obstacles to treatment. “I don’t think we’ll ever be satisfied with where we are,” Dr. Bolwell said.

Dr. Bolwell reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – In 2014, the average time from diagnosis to treatment initiation for new cancer patients at the Cleveland Clinic was 29-41 days, depending on whether the patient was diagnosed internally or externally. That figure was not acceptable, said Brian J. Bolwell, MD, chairman of the Cleveland Clinic’s Taussig Cancer Institute.

Since then, the time-to-treat metric has improved dramatically, dropping 33%. Today, time to treat for new cancer patients is 25-31 days, depending on the site of diagnosis.

To get there, leaders at the cancer center examined the causes of delay within each of their disease programs. The analysis revealed that less than 20% of the time it was patient preferences that slowed down the initiation of treatment, but that more than 80% of the time the delay was on the part of their institution.

Dr. Bolwell said this led them to start tracking every newly diagnosed patient who came through the cancer center to ensure they didn’t fall through the cracks, and that they were treated as rapidly as possible.

But figuring out how to get patients to treatment quicker depended on the type of cancer they had, since each type of cancer had different challenges and different points of entry to the health care system.

“So for breast cancer, it turns out a lot of the challenges might be coordination of surgery because sometimes a general surgeon has to work with a reconstructive-plastic surgeon and coordinating the surgical schedules might drastically lengthen time to treat,” he said during an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

They helped address that problem by scheduling breast cancer patients for surgery by the next available operating room slot, rather than doing the scheduling by surgeon.

There are additional barriers to achieving a rapid time to treat standard, including prior authorization, Dr. Bolwell said. But they are continuing to chip away at the metric, working within each cancer type to lower the obstacles to treatment. “I don’t think we’ll ever be satisfied with where we are,” Dr. Bolwell said.

Dr. Bolwell reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – In 2014, the average time from diagnosis to treatment initiation for new cancer patients at the Cleveland Clinic was 29-41 days, depending on whether the patient was diagnosed internally or externally. That figure was not acceptable, said Brian J. Bolwell, MD, chairman of the Cleveland Clinic’s Taussig Cancer Institute.

Since then, the time-to-treat metric has improved dramatically, dropping 33%. Today, time to treat for new cancer patients is 25-31 days, depending on the site of diagnosis.

To get there, leaders at the cancer center examined the causes of delay within each of their disease programs. The analysis revealed that less than 20% of the time it was patient preferences that slowed down the initiation of treatment, but that more than 80% of the time the delay was on the part of their institution.

Dr. Bolwell said this led them to start tracking every newly diagnosed patient who came through the cancer center to ensure they didn’t fall through the cracks, and that they were treated as rapidly as possible.

But figuring out how to get patients to treatment quicker depended on the type of cancer they had, since each type of cancer had different challenges and different points of entry to the health care system.

“So for breast cancer, it turns out a lot of the challenges might be coordination of surgery because sometimes a general surgeon has to work with a reconstructive-plastic surgeon and coordinating the surgical schedules might drastically lengthen time to treat,” he said during an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

They helped address that problem by scheduling breast cancer patients for surgery by the next available operating room slot, rather than doing the scheduling by surgeon.

There are additional barriers to achieving a rapid time to treat standard, including prior authorization, Dr. Bolwell said. But they are continuing to chip away at the metric, working within each cancer type to lower the obstacles to treatment. “I don’t think we’ll ever be satisfied with where we are,” Dr. Bolwell said.

Dr. Bolwell reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Artificial intelligence is improving the accuracy of optical biopsies, a development that may ultimately avoid the need for tissue biopsies of many low-risk colonic polyps, Michael Byrne, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Vidyard Video

Dr. Byrne, chief executive officer of Satisfai Health, founder of ai4gi, and gastroenterologist at Vancouver General Hospital; Nicolas Guizard, medical imaging researcher at Imagia; and their colleagues at ai4gi developed a “full clinical workflow” for detecting colonic polyps and performing optical biopsies of the polyps.”

Using narrow band imaging (NBI) enhanced with artificial intelligence, the system was used to review 21,804 colonoscopy frames and it achieved a “near-perfect” diagnostic accuracy of 99.9%. In an assessment of colonoscopy videos that included 125 polyps, the system had 95.9% sensitivity, with a specificity of 91.6% and a negative predictive value of 93.6%, Dr. Byrne said.

The speed of the system’s decision-making is rapid, with a typical reaction time of 360 milliseconds. The system was able to make diagnostic inferences at a rate of 26 milliseconds per frame.

With exposure to more learning experiences, the artificial intelligence system improved and committed to a prediction for 97.6% of the polyps it visualized. Dr. Byrne said this result represented a 12.8% improvement from previously published data on the model’s performance.

Dr. Byrne and his colleagues found the system had a tracking accuracy of 92.8%, meaning that this percentage of polyps was both correctly detected and assigned to a unique identifier for follow-up of the site of each excised polyp over time. The interface worked even when multiple polyps were seen on the same screen.

In a video interview, Dr. Byrne discussed the implications for gastroenterology and plans for a clinical trial for rigorous testing of the model.

ai4gi is developing the AI colonoscopy technology. Dr. Byrne is founder of the ai4gi joint venture, which holds a technology codevelopment agreement with Olympus US.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Artificial intelligence is improving the accuracy of optical biopsies, a development that may ultimately avoid the need for tissue biopsies of many low-risk colonic polyps, Michael Byrne, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Vidyard Video

Dr. Byrne, chief executive officer of Satisfai Health, founder of ai4gi, and gastroenterologist at Vancouver General Hospital; Nicolas Guizard, medical imaging researcher at Imagia; and their colleagues at ai4gi developed a “full clinical workflow” for detecting colonic polyps and performing optical biopsies of the polyps.”

Using narrow band imaging (NBI) enhanced with artificial intelligence, the system was used to review 21,804 colonoscopy frames and it achieved a “near-perfect” diagnostic accuracy of 99.9%. In an assessment of colonoscopy videos that included 125 polyps, the system had 95.9% sensitivity, with a specificity of 91.6% and a negative predictive value of 93.6%, Dr. Byrne said.

The speed of the system’s decision-making is rapid, with a typical reaction time of 360 milliseconds. The system was able to make diagnostic inferences at a rate of 26 milliseconds per frame.

With exposure to more learning experiences, the artificial intelligence system improved and committed to a prediction for 97.6% of the polyps it visualized. Dr. Byrne said this result represented a 12.8% improvement from previously published data on the model’s performance.

Dr. Byrne and his colleagues found the system had a tracking accuracy of 92.8%, meaning that this percentage of polyps was both correctly detected and assigned to a unique identifier for follow-up of the site of each excised polyp over time. The interface worked even when multiple polyps were seen on the same screen.

In a video interview, Dr. Byrne discussed the implications for gastroenterology and plans for a clinical trial for rigorous testing of the model.

ai4gi is developing the AI colonoscopy technology. Dr. Byrne is founder of the ai4gi joint venture, which holds a technology codevelopment agreement with Olympus US.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Artificial intelligence is improving the accuracy of optical biopsies, a development that may ultimately avoid the need for tissue biopsies of many low-risk colonic polyps, Michael Byrne, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Vidyard Video

Dr. Byrne, chief executive officer of Satisfai Health, founder of ai4gi, and gastroenterologist at Vancouver General Hospital; Nicolas Guizard, medical imaging researcher at Imagia; and their colleagues at ai4gi developed a “full clinical workflow” for detecting colonic polyps and performing optical biopsies of the polyps.”

Using narrow band imaging (NBI) enhanced with artificial intelligence, the system was used to review 21,804 colonoscopy frames and it achieved a “near-perfect” diagnostic accuracy of 99.9%. In an assessment of colonoscopy videos that included 125 polyps, the system had 95.9% sensitivity, with a specificity of 91.6% and a negative predictive value of 93.6%, Dr. Byrne said.

The speed of the system’s decision-making is rapid, with a typical reaction time of 360 milliseconds. The system was able to make diagnostic inferences at a rate of 26 milliseconds per frame.

With exposure to more learning experiences, the artificial intelligence system improved and committed to a prediction for 97.6% of the polyps it visualized. Dr. Byrne said this result represented a 12.8% improvement from previously published data on the model’s performance.

Dr. Byrne and his colleagues found the system had a tracking accuracy of 92.8%, meaning that this percentage of polyps was both correctly detected and assigned to a unique identifier for follow-up of the site of each excised polyp over time. The interface worked even when multiple polyps were seen on the same screen.

In a video interview, Dr. Byrne discussed the implications for gastroenterology and plans for a clinical trial for rigorous testing of the model.

ai4gi is developing the AI colonoscopy technology. Dr. Byrne is founder of the ai4gi joint venture, which holds a technology codevelopment agreement with Olympus US.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Coffee, tea, and soda consumption are all associated with increased risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), according to a new prospective cohort study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

In an interview following the oral presentation, Raaj S. Mehta, MD, said that patients in his primary care panel at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, where he’s a senior resident, frequently came to him with GERD. In addition to questions about diet, patients frequently wanted to know which beverages might provoke or exacerbate their GERD.

In trying to help his patients, Dr. Mehta said he realized that there wasn’t a prospective evidence base to answer their questions about beverages and GERD, so he and his colleagues used data from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), a prospective cohort study, to look at the association between various beverages and the incidence of GERD.

“What’s exciting is that we were able to find that coffee, tea, and soda – all three – increase your risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease,” Dr. Mehta said in a video interview. “At the highest quintile level, so looking at people who consume six or more cups per day, you’re looking at maybe a 25%-35% increase in risk of reflux disease.”

There was a dose-response relationship as well: “You do see a slight increase as you go from one cup, to two, to three, and so on, all the way up to six cups” of the offending beverages, said Dr. Mehta.

Overall, the risk for GERD rose from 1.17 to 1.34 with coffee consumption as servings per day increased from less than one to six or more (P for trend less than .0001). Tea consumption was associated with increased GERD risk ranging from 1.08 to 1.26 as consumption rose (P for trend .001). For soda, the increased risk went from 1.12 at less than one serving daily, to 1.41 at four to five servings daily, and then fell to 1.29 at six or more daily servings (P for trend less than .0001).

Whether the beverages were caffeinated or not, said Dr. Mehta, only made a “minimal difference” in GERD risk.

“In contrast, we didn’t see an association for beverages like water, juice, and milk,” he said – reassuring findings in light of fruit juice’s anecdotal status as a GERD culprit.

The NHS II collected data every 2 years from 48,308 female nurses aged 42-62 years at the beginning of the study. Every 4 years dietary information was collected, and on the opposite 4-year cycle, participants answered questions about GERD. Medication use, including the incident use of proton pump inhibitors, was collected every 2 years.

Patients with baseline GERD or use of PPIs or H₂ receptor antagonists were excluded from participation.

The quantity and type of beverages were assessed by food frequency questionnaires; other demographic, dietary, and medication variables were also gathered and used to adjust the statistical analysis.

A substitution analysis answered the “what-if” question of the effect of substituting two glasses of plain water daily for either coffee, tea, or soda. Dr. Mehta and colleagues saw a modest reduction in risk for GERD with this strategy.

In addition to the prospective nature of the study (abstract 514, doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(19)37044-1), the large sample size, high follow-up rates, and well validated dietary data were all strengths, said Dr. Mehta. However, the study’s population is relatively homogeneous, and residual confounding couldn’t be excluded. Also, GERD was defined by self-report, though participants were asked to respond to clear, validated criteria.

For Dr. Mehta, he’s glad to have a clear answer to a common clinic question. “I think that this is one additional thing that I can recommend as a primary care provider to my patients when they come into my office,” he said.

Dr. Mehta reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – In a multicenter study involving four academic medical centers, the addition of weight loss drugs to intragastric balloons resulted in better weight loss 12 months after balloon placement.

In a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week, study investigator Reem Sharaiha, MD, explained that one of the drawbacks of intragastric balloons is that, although they produce weight loss for the 6 or 12 months that they are in place, patients tend to regain that weight after they are removed. The study, involving 111 patients, was designed to determine whether the addition of weight loss drugs could mitigate this effect and improve weight loss, said Dr. Sharaiha of Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

Adding drugs such as metformin or weight loss drugs tailored to patients’ particular weight issues (cravings, anxiety, or fast gastric emptying) at the 3- or 6-month mark while the intragastric balloon was in place helped patients continue losing weight after balloon removal. At 12 months, the percentage of total body weight lost was significantly greater in the intragastric balloon group with concurrent pharmacotherapy (21.4% vs. 13.1%).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shah SL et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 1105.

SAN DIEGO – In a multicenter study involving four academic medical centers, the addition of weight loss drugs to intragastric balloons resulted in better weight loss 12 months after balloon placement.

In a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week, study investigator Reem Sharaiha, MD, explained that one of the drawbacks of intragastric balloons is that, although they produce weight loss for the 6 or 12 months that they are in place, patients tend to regain that weight after they are removed. The study, involving 111 patients, was designed to determine whether the addition of weight loss drugs could mitigate this effect and improve weight loss, said Dr. Sharaiha of Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

Adding drugs such as metformin or weight loss drugs tailored to patients’ particular weight issues (cravings, anxiety, or fast gastric emptying) at the 3- or 6-month mark while the intragastric balloon was in place helped patients continue losing weight after balloon removal. At 12 months, the percentage of total body weight lost was significantly greater in the intragastric balloon group with concurrent pharmacotherapy (21.4% vs. 13.1%).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shah SL et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 1105.

SAN DIEGO – In a multicenter study involving four academic medical centers, the addition of weight loss drugs to intragastric balloons resulted in better weight loss 12 months after balloon placement.

In a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week, study investigator Reem Sharaiha, MD, explained that one of the drawbacks of intragastric balloons is that, although they produce weight loss for the 6 or 12 months that they are in place, patients tend to regain that weight after they are removed. The study, involving 111 patients, was designed to determine whether the addition of weight loss drugs could mitigate this effect and improve weight loss, said Dr. Sharaiha of Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

Adding drugs such as metformin or weight loss drugs tailored to patients’ particular weight issues (cravings, anxiety, or fast gastric emptying) at the 3- or 6-month mark while the intragastric balloon was in place helped patients continue losing weight after balloon removal. At 12 months, the percentage of total body weight lost was significantly greater in the intragastric balloon group with concurrent pharmacotherapy (21.4% vs. 13.1%).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shah SL et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 1105.

SAN FRANCISCO – Some physicians are uncomfortable providing mental health care to patients with intellectual disability (ID) because many of the patients’ communications skills are limited. But many resources are available that can help.

In this video, Nita V. Bhatt, MD, MPH, interviews Julie P. Gentile, MD, about some of those resources and discusses how to approach psychiatric treatment interventions for patients with ID.

In addition to the DSM-5, Dr. Gentile said the National Association for the Dually Diagnosed has published the Diagnostic Manual – Intellectual Disability. Another resource is a practical reference manual originally proposed by one of Dr. Gentile’s residents.

“He came into my office for supervision one day and said, ‘You know, there’s all these nuances for psychiatric treatment in this patient population. So we should write a practice, quick reference manual to help clinicians who aren’t able to spend as much time concentrate on this patient population.’ ”

As a result, several residents and faculty members formed a team to produce an 18-chapter book published this year by Springer called the Guide to Intellectual Disabilities: A Clinical Handbook.

Dr. Bhatt is a staff psychiatrist at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, the state psychiatric hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Gentile is professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at Wright State in Dayton. She is also serves as project director of Ohio’s Telepsychiatry Project for Intellectual Disability and has been awarded more than $7 million in grant funding to support her projects in the field of ID.

Dr. Gentile’s work has been funded by the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.
 

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Some physicians are uncomfortable providing mental health care to patients with intellectual disability (ID) because many of the patients’ communications skills are limited. But many resources are available that can help.

In this video, Nita V. Bhatt, MD, MPH, interviews Julie P. Gentile, MD, about some of those resources and discusses how to approach psychiatric treatment interventions for patients with ID.

In addition to the DSM-5, Dr. Gentile said the National Association for the Dually Diagnosed has published the Diagnostic Manual – Intellectual Disability. Another resource is a practical reference manual originally proposed by one of Dr. Gentile’s residents.

“He came into my office for supervision one day and said, ‘You know, there’s all these nuances for psychiatric treatment in this patient population. So we should write a practice, quick reference manual to help clinicians who aren’t able to spend as much time concentrate on this patient population.’ ”

As a result, several residents and faculty members formed a team to produce an 18-chapter book published this year by Springer called the Guide to Intellectual Disabilities: A Clinical Handbook.

Dr. Bhatt is a staff psychiatrist at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, the state psychiatric hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Gentile is professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at Wright State in Dayton. She is also serves as project director of Ohio’s Telepsychiatry Project for Intellectual Disability and has been awarded more than $7 million in grant funding to support her projects in the field of ID.

Dr. Gentile’s work has been funded by the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.
 

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Some physicians are uncomfortable providing mental health care to patients with intellectual disability (ID) because many of the patients’ communications skills are limited. But many resources are available that can help.

In this video, Nita V. Bhatt, MD, MPH, interviews Julie P. Gentile, MD, about some of those resources and discusses how to approach psychiatric treatment interventions for patients with ID.

In addition to the DSM-5, Dr. Gentile said the National Association for the Dually Diagnosed has published the Diagnostic Manual – Intellectual Disability. Another resource is a practical reference manual originally proposed by one of Dr. Gentile’s residents.

“He came into my office for supervision one day and said, ‘You know, there’s all these nuances for psychiatric treatment in this patient population. So we should write a practice, quick reference manual to help clinicians who aren’t able to spend as much time concentrate on this patient population.’ ”

As a result, several residents and faculty members formed a team to produce an 18-chapter book published this year by Springer called the Guide to Intellectual Disabilities: A Clinical Handbook.

Dr. Bhatt is a staff psychiatrist at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, the state psychiatric hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Gentile is professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at Wright State in Dayton. She is also serves as project director of Ohio’s Telepsychiatry Project for Intellectual Disability and has been awarded more than $7 million in grant funding to support her projects in the field of ID.

Dr. Gentile’s work has been funded by the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.
 

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s a common scenario, and it’s going to become more common: Psychiatric patients will be coming into the office not quite satisfied with their current treatment and wanting to try cannabis.

With laws varying from state to state and a limited but growing body of evidence, the situation “presents a complicated, often difficult clinical situation,” said David A. Gorelick, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

There is some evidence supporting cannabis for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, spasticity in multiple sclerosis, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cannabidiol is also Food and Drug Administration approved for two severe forms of pediatric epilepsy.

When it comes to psychiatric disorders, however, evidence is largely lacking. There have been suggestions of cannabis increasing anxiety and worsening posttraumatic stress, depression, bipolar disorder, and psychosis. On the other hand, some patients swear by marijuana for psychiatric symptom relief.

So what to do? Dr. Gorelick, editor of the Journal of Cannabis Research, had some advice in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Where it’s legal, a cannabis recommendation for pain and sleep problems is reasonable, but it’s important to figure out what’s lacking in the patients’ treatment regimen that makes them want to try cannabis, and to first try to maximize treatment with approved, evidence-based options. As with any medication, a talk about risks and benefits is also essential. There’s an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents, acute panic attacks, and other issues with cannabis. Also, keep in mind that cannabinoids, particularly tetrahydrocannabinol, are metabolized in the liver and can interfere with concentrations of other liver-metabolized drugs, including some antidepressants and anticonvulsants. It’s not clear how significant the clinical interactions are, “but if patients are on warfarin, I would be very careful,” he said.

Dr. Gorelick disclosed speaking fees from hospitals and organizations for presentations on medical cannabis and royalties from Up-to-Date for cannabis topics. He also disclosed receiving honoraria from Colorado State University, Pueblo, and from Springer for his work on the Journal of Cannabis Research.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s a common scenario, and it’s going to become more common: Psychiatric patients will be coming into the office not quite satisfied with their current treatment and wanting to try cannabis.

With laws varying from state to state and a limited but growing body of evidence, the situation “presents a complicated, often difficult clinical situation,” said David A. Gorelick, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

There is some evidence supporting cannabis for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, spasticity in multiple sclerosis, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cannabidiol is also Food and Drug Administration approved for two severe forms of pediatric epilepsy.

When it comes to psychiatric disorders, however, evidence is largely lacking. There have been suggestions of cannabis increasing anxiety and worsening posttraumatic stress, depression, bipolar disorder, and psychosis. On the other hand, some patients swear by marijuana for psychiatric symptom relief.

So what to do? Dr. Gorelick, editor of the Journal of Cannabis Research, had some advice in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Where it’s legal, a cannabis recommendation for pain and sleep problems is reasonable, but it’s important to figure out what’s lacking in the patients’ treatment regimen that makes them want to try cannabis, and to first try to maximize treatment with approved, evidence-based options. As with any medication, a talk about risks and benefits is also essential. There’s an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents, acute panic attacks, and other issues with cannabis. Also, keep in mind that cannabinoids, particularly tetrahydrocannabinol, are metabolized in the liver and can interfere with concentrations of other liver-metabolized drugs, including some antidepressants and anticonvulsants. It’s not clear how significant the clinical interactions are, “but if patients are on warfarin, I would be very careful,” he said.

Dr. Gorelick disclosed speaking fees from hospitals and organizations for presentations on medical cannabis and royalties from Up-to-Date for cannabis topics. He also disclosed receiving honoraria from Colorado State University, Pueblo, and from Springer for his work on the Journal of Cannabis Research.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s a common scenario, and it’s going to become more common: Psychiatric patients will be coming into the office not quite satisfied with their current treatment and wanting to try cannabis.

With laws varying from state to state and a limited but growing body of evidence, the situation “presents a complicated, often difficult clinical situation,” said David A. Gorelick, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

There is some evidence supporting cannabis for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, spasticity in multiple sclerosis, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Cannabidiol is also Food and Drug Administration approved for two severe forms of pediatric epilepsy.

When it comes to psychiatric disorders, however, evidence is largely lacking. There have been suggestions of cannabis increasing anxiety and worsening posttraumatic stress, depression, bipolar disorder, and psychosis. On the other hand, some patients swear by marijuana for psychiatric symptom relief.

So what to do? Dr. Gorelick, editor of the Journal of Cannabis Research, had some advice in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Where it’s legal, a cannabis recommendation for pain and sleep problems is reasonable, but it’s important to figure out what’s lacking in the patients’ treatment regimen that makes them want to try cannabis, and to first try to maximize treatment with approved, evidence-based options. As with any medication, a talk about risks and benefits is also essential. There’s an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents, acute panic attacks, and other issues with cannabis. Also, keep in mind that cannabinoids, particularly tetrahydrocannabinol, are metabolized in the liver and can interfere with concentrations of other liver-metabolized drugs, including some antidepressants and anticonvulsants. It’s not clear how significant the clinical interactions are, “but if patients are on warfarin, I would be very careful,” he said.

Dr. Gorelick disclosed speaking fees from hospitals and organizations for presentations on medical cannabis and royalties from Up-to-Date for cannabis topics. He also disclosed receiving honoraria from Colorado State University, Pueblo, and from Springer for his work on the Journal of Cannabis Research.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – When Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, and her colleagues noticed the absence of good role modeling about how to address race and racism in interactions with supervisors at their long-term care clinic, they conducted a research study.

Vidyard Video

“Now, we’re working on rolling out what those solutions might be for addressing this gap in the education,” said Dr. Isom, a PGY-4 resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Many of the issues Dr. Isom and her colleagues found are reminiscent of those identified almost 50 years ago by Billy E. Jones, MD, and his colleagues. Their article (1970 Dec; 127[6]:798-803) focusing on the problems of black residents in predominantly white institutions was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Constance E. Dunlap, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In this video, Dr. Dunlap interviews Dr. Isom about her experiences with both supervisors and patients on issues tied to race and racism – and examines possible solutions.

In one case, Dr. Isom said she created an opening for discussion with a supervisor by advising him to read the book White Fragility (Beacon Press, 2018). “He read the book,” Dr. Isom said. “And we talked about that in the following supervision session. I feel like I sort of planted a seed. And he’s thinking about these things now as a white man and his relationship to racism. So that’s sort of a positive outcome from having that conversation in the first place.”

In another case involving a patient who declined treatment from Dr. Isom and an Asian male medical student, Dr. Isom said she respected the patient’s wishes and walked out of the room. When she shared the experience with her team, the incident was not addressed.

Dr. Isom’s experiences reflects that of African Americans and other ethnic minorities in the United States, Dr. Dunlap said. “I think about being in junior high school and reading ... and doing my own study outside of school and that has carried through college, medical school, and even in residency – and definitely psychoanalytic training – where psychoanalysts like Frantz Fanon, Frances Cress Welsing, even Dorothy Holmes ... were not included in the mainstream curriculum.” However, those thinkers are included in some curricula now.

“This is an example of how medicine and psychoanalysis have been functioning in parallel with the way the country functions,” Dr. Dunlap said. “This is a huge blind spot.”

Dr. Isom worked on the research study with fellow residents* Myra Mathis, MD; Flavia DeSouza, MHS, MD; and Natalie Lastra, MD. Dr. Isom is member of the American Psychiatric Association Assembly as the area 1 representative for resident fellow members. She also is one of the chief residents of diversity and inclusion, and a codirector of the social justice and health equity curriculum at the department of psychiatry at Yale. Dr. Dunlap is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst with more than 25 years’ experience in clinical care, psychiatric education, patient advocacy, and community outreach. She is a member of the APA assembly representing the Washington Psychiatric Society. Dr. Isom and Dr. Dunlap had no disclosures.

[email protected]

*CLARIFICATION, 5/22/2019

SAN FRANCISCO – When Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, and her colleagues noticed the absence of good role modeling about how to address race and racism in interactions with supervisors at their long-term care clinic, they conducted a research study.

Vidyard Video

“Now, we’re working on rolling out what those solutions might be for addressing this gap in the education,” said Dr. Isom, a PGY-4 resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Many of the issues Dr. Isom and her colleagues found are reminiscent of those identified almost 50 years ago by Billy E. Jones, MD, and his colleagues. Their article (1970 Dec; 127[6]:798-803) focusing on the problems of black residents in predominantly white institutions was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Constance E. Dunlap, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In this video, Dr. Dunlap interviews Dr. Isom about her experiences with both supervisors and patients on issues tied to race and racism – and examines possible solutions.

In one case, Dr. Isom said she created an opening for discussion with a supervisor by advising him to read the book White Fragility (Beacon Press, 2018). “He read the book,” Dr. Isom said. “And we talked about that in the following supervision session. I feel like I sort of planted a seed. And he’s thinking about these things now as a white man and his relationship to racism. So that’s sort of a positive outcome from having that conversation in the first place.”

In another case involving a patient who declined treatment from Dr. Isom and an Asian male medical student, Dr. Isom said she respected the patient’s wishes and walked out of the room. When she shared the experience with her team, the incident was not addressed.

Dr. Isom’s experiences reflects that of African Americans and other ethnic minorities in the United States, Dr. Dunlap said. “I think about being in junior high school and reading ... and doing my own study outside of school and that has carried through college, medical school, and even in residency – and definitely psychoanalytic training – where psychoanalysts like Frantz Fanon, Frances Cress Welsing, even Dorothy Holmes ... were not included in the mainstream curriculum.” However, those thinkers are included in some curricula now.

“This is an example of how medicine and psychoanalysis have been functioning in parallel with the way the country functions,” Dr. Dunlap said. “This is a huge blind spot.”

Dr. Isom worked on the research study with fellow residents* Myra Mathis, MD; Flavia DeSouza, MHS, MD; and Natalie Lastra, MD. Dr. Isom is member of the American Psychiatric Association Assembly as the area 1 representative for resident fellow members. She also is one of the chief residents of diversity and inclusion, and a codirector of the social justice and health equity curriculum at the department of psychiatry at Yale. Dr. Dunlap is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst with more than 25 years’ experience in clinical care, psychiatric education, patient advocacy, and community outreach. She is a member of the APA assembly representing the Washington Psychiatric Society. Dr. Isom and Dr. Dunlap had no disclosures.

[email protected]

*CLARIFICATION, 5/22/2019

SAN FRANCISCO – When Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, and her colleagues noticed the absence of good role modeling about how to address race and racism in interactions with supervisors at their long-term care clinic, they conducted a research study.

Vidyard Video

“Now, we’re working on rolling out what those solutions might be for addressing this gap in the education,” said Dr. Isom, a PGY-4 resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Many of the issues Dr. Isom and her colleagues found are reminiscent of those identified almost 50 years ago by Billy E. Jones, MD, and his colleagues. Their article (1970 Dec; 127[6]:798-803) focusing on the problems of black residents in predominantly white institutions was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Constance E. Dunlap, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In this video, Dr. Dunlap interviews Dr. Isom about her experiences with both supervisors and patients on issues tied to race and racism – and examines possible solutions.

In one case, Dr. Isom said she created an opening for discussion with a supervisor by advising him to read the book White Fragility (Beacon Press, 2018). “He read the book,” Dr. Isom said. “And we talked about that in the following supervision session. I feel like I sort of planted a seed. And he’s thinking about these things now as a white man and his relationship to racism. So that’s sort of a positive outcome from having that conversation in the first place.”

In another case involving a patient who declined treatment from Dr. Isom and an Asian male medical student, Dr. Isom said she respected the patient’s wishes and walked out of the room. When she shared the experience with her team, the incident was not addressed.

Dr. Isom’s experiences reflects that of African Americans and other ethnic minorities in the United States, Dr. Dunlap said. “I think about being in junior high school and reading ... and doing my own study outside of school and that has carried through college, medical school, and even in residency – and definitely psychoanalytic training – where psychoanalysts like Frantz Fanon, Frances Cress Welsing, even Dorothy Holmes ... were not included in the mainstream curriculum.” However, those thinkers are included in some curricula now.

“This is an example of how medicine and psychoanalysis have been functioning in parallel with the way the country functions,” Dr. Dunlap said. “This is a huge blind spot.”

Dr. Isom worked on the research study with fellow residents* Myra Mathis, MD; Flavia DeSouza, MHS, MD; and Natalie Lastra, MD. Dr. Isom is member of the American Psychiatric Association Assembly as the area 1 representative for resident fellow members. She also is one of the chief residents of diversity and inclusion, and a codirector of the social justice and health equity curriculum at the department of psychiatry at Yale. Dr. Dunlap is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst with more than 25 years’ experience in clinical care, psychiatric education, patient advocacy, and community outreach. She is a member of the APA assembly representing the Washington Psychiatric Society. Dr. Isom and Dr. Dunlap had no disclosures.

[email protected]

*CLARIFICATION, 5/22/2019

SAN DIEGO – Gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors may affect nearly half of those treated, according to the findings of a population-based sample of more than 70,000 Americans.

As part of the National Institutes of Health GI Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NIH GI-PROMIS) questionnaire, respondents could download a free app called “My GI Health,” which led them through a series of questions about GI diseases. Sean Delshad, MD, MBA, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, and his colleagues examined data on symptom responses about GERD and heartburn.

Their somewhat surprising findings were that 44% of respondents had ever had GERD and that 70% of those respondents had symptoms in the past week. GERD seemed to be more common in women than in men, and in non-Hispanic whites more than other demographic groups. The rate of proton pump inhibitor–refractory GERD was reported at 54%.

Dr. Delshad discussed the implications of the study results for treatment and research in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
 

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors may affect nearly half of those treated, according to the findings of a population-based sample of more than 70,000 Americans.

As part of the National Institutes of Health GI Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NIH GI-PROMIS) questionnaire, respondents could download a free app called “My GI Health,” which led them through a series of questions about GI diseases. Sean Delshad, MD, MBA, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, and his colleagues examined data on symptom responses about GERD and heartburn.

Their somewhat surprising findings were that 44% of respondents had ever had GERD and that 70% of those respondents had symptoms in the past week. GERD seemed to be more common in women than in men, and in non-Hispanic whites more than other demographic groups. The rate of proton pump inhibitor–refractory GERD was reported at 54%.

Dr. Delshad discussed the implications of the study results for treatment and research in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
 

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitors may affect nearly half of those treated, according to the findings of a population-based sample of more than 70,000 Americans.

As part of the National Institutes of Health GI Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NIH GI-PROMIS) questionnaire, respondents could download a free app called “My GI Health,” which led them through a series of questions about GI diseases. Sean Delshad, MD, MBA, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, and his colleagues examined data on symptom responses about GERD and heartburn.

Their somewhat surprising findings were that 44% of respondents had ever had GERD and that 70% of those respondents had symptoms in the past week. GERD seemed to be more common in women than in men, and in non-Hispanic whites more than other demographic groups. The rate of proton pump inhibitor–refractory GERD was reported at 54%.

Dr. Delshad discussed the implications of the study results for treatment and research in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
 

[email protected]