Opinion

My group in Rochester, N.Y., examined the current pneumococcal serotypes causing AOM in children. From our data, we can determine the PCV13 vaccine types that escape prevention and cause AOM and understand what effect to expect from the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) that will be coming soon. There are limited data from middle ear fluid (MEF) cultures on which to base such analyses. Tympanocentesis is the preferred method for securing MEF for culture and our group is unique in providing such data to the Centers for Disease Control and publishing our results on a periodic basis to inform clinicians.

Pneumococci are the second most common cause of acute otitis media (AOM) since the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) more than 2 decades ago.^1,2 Pneumococcal AOM causes more severe acute disease and more often causes suppurative complications than Haemophilus influenzae, which is the most common cause of AOM. Prevention of pneumococcal AOM will be a highly relevant contributor to cost-effectiveness analyses for the anticipated introduction of PCV15 (Merck) and PCV20 (Pfizer). Both PCV15 and PCV20 have been licensed for adult use; PCV15 licensure for infants and children occurred in June 2022 for invasive pneumococcal disease and is anticipated in the near future for PCV20. They are improvements over PCV13 because they add serotypes that cause invasive pneumococcal diseases, although less so for prevention of AOM, on the basis of our data.

Nasopharyngeal colonization is a necessary pathogenic step in progression to pneumococcal disease. However, not all strains of pneumococci expressing different capsular serotypes are equally virulent and likely to cause disease. In PCV-vaccinated populations, vaccine pressure and antibiotic resistance drive PCV serotype replacement with nonvaccine serotypes (NVTs), gradually reducing the net effectiveness of the vaccines. Therefore, knowledge of prevalent NVTs colonizing the nasopharynx identifies future pneumococcal serotypes most likely to emerge as pathogenic.

We published an effectiveness study of PCV13.³ A relative reduction of 86% in AOM caused by strains expressing PCV13 serotypes was observed in the first few years after PCV13 introduction. The greatest reduction in MEF samples was in serotype 19A, with a relative reduction of 91%. However, over time the vaccine type efficacy of PCV13 against MEF-positive pneumococcal AOM has eroded. There was no clear efficacy against serotype 3, and we still observed cases of serotype 19A and 19F. PCV13 vaccine failures have been even more frequent in Europe (nearly 30% of pneumococcal AOM in Europe is caused by vaccine serotypes) than our data indicate, where about 10% of AOM is caused by PCV13 serotypes.

In our most recent publication covering 2015-2019, we described results from 589 children, aged 6-36 months, from whom we collected 2,042 nasopharyngeal samples.^2,4 During AOM, 495 MEF samples from 319 AOM-infected children were collected (during bilateral infections, tympanocentesis was performed in both ears). Whether bacteria were isolated was based per AOM case, not per tap. The average age of children with AOM was 15 months (range 6-31 months). The three most prevalent nasopharyngeal pneumococcal serotypes were 35B, 23B, and 15B/C. Serotype 35B was the most common at AOM visits in both the nasopharynx and MEF samples followed by serotype 15B/C. Nonsusceptibility among pneumococci to penicillin, azithromycin, and multiple other antibiotics was high. Increasing resistance to ceftriaxone was also observed.

Based on our results, if PCV15 (PCV13 + 22F and 33F) effectiveness is identical to PCV13 for the included serotypes and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes is presumed, PCV15 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 8%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 6%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3%. As for the projected reductions brought about by PCV20 (PCV15 + 8, 10A, 11A, 12F, and 15B), presuming serotype 15B is efficacious against serotype 15C and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes, PCV20 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 22%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 20%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3% (Figure).

The CDC estimated that, in 2004, pneumococcal disease in the United States caused 4 million illness episodes, 22,000 deaths, 445,000 hospitalizations, 774,000 emergency department visits, 5 million outpatient visits, and 4.1 million outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. Direct medical costs totaled $3.5 billion. Pneumonia (866,000 cases) accounted for 22% of all cases and 72% of pneumococcal costs. AOM and sinusitis (1.5 million cases each) composed 75% of cases and 16% of direct medical costs.⁵ However, if indirect costs are taken into account, such as work loss by parents of young children, the cost of pneumococcal disease caused by AOM alone may exceed $6 billion annually⁶ and become dominant in the cost-effectiveness analysis in high-income countries.

Despite widespread use of PCV13, Pneumococcus has shown its resilience under vaccine pressure such that the organism remains a very common AOM pathogen. All-cause AOM has declined modestly and pneumococcal AOM caused by the specific serotypes in PCVs has declined dramatically since the introduction of PCVs. However, the burden of pneumococcal AOM disease is still considerable.

The notion that strains expressing serotypes that were not included in PCV7 were less virulent was proven wrong within a few years after introduction of PCV7, with the emergence of strains expressing serotype 19A, and others. The same cycle occurred after introduction of PCV13. It appears to take about 4 years after introduction of a PCV before peak effectiveness is achieved – which then begins to erode with emergence of NVTs. First, the NVTs are observed to colonize the nasopharynx as commensals and then from among those strains new disease-causing strains emerge.

At the most recent meeting of the International Society of Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases in Toronto in June, many presentations focused on the fact that PCVs elicit highly effective protective serotype-specific antibodies to the capsular polysaccharides of included types. However, 100 serotypes are known. The limitations of PCVs are becoming increasingly apparent. They are costly and consume a large portion of the Vaccines for Children budget. Children in the developing world remain largely unvaccinated because of the high cost. NVTs that have emerged to cause disease vary by country, vary by adult vs. pediatric populations, and are dynamically changing year to year. Forthcoming PCVs of 15 and 20 serotypes will be even more costly than PCV13, will not include many newly emerged serotypes, and will probably likewise encounter “serotype replacement” because of high immune evasion by pneumococci.

When Merck and Pfizer made their decisions on serotype composition for PCV15 and PCV20, respectively, they were based on available data at the time regarding predominant serotypes causing invasive pneumococcal disease in countries that had the best data and would be the market for their products. However, from the time of the decision to licensure of vaccine is many years, and during that time the pneumococcal serotypes have changed, more so for AOM, and I predict more change will occur in the future.

In the past 3 years, Dr. Pichichero has received honoraria from Merck to attend 1-day consulting meetings and his institution has received investigator-initiated research grants to study aspects of PCV15. In the past 3 years, he was reimbursed for expenses to attend the ISPPD meeting in Toronto to present a poster on potential efficacy of PCV20 to prevent complicated AOM.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3).

2. Kaur R et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;41:37-44..

3. Pichichero M et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2(8):561-8.

4. Zhou F et al. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):253-60.

5. Huang SS et al. Vaccine. 2011;29(18):3398-412.

6. Casey JR and Pichichero ME. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014;53(9):865-73. .
 

My group in Rochester, N.Y., examined the current pneumococcal serotypes causing AOM in children. From our data, we can determine the PCV13 vaccine types that escape prevention and cause AOM and understand what effect to expect from the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) that will be coming soon. There are limited data from middle ear fluid (MEF) cultures on which to base such analyses. Tympanocentesis is the preferred method for securing MEF for culture and our group is unique in providing such data to the Centers for Disease Control and publishing our results on a periodic basis to inform clinicians.

Pneumococci are the second most common cause of acute otitis media (AOM) since the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) more than 2 decades ago.^1,2 Pneumococcal AOM causes more severe acute disease and more often causes suppurative complications than Haemophilus influenzae, which is the most common cause of AOM. Prevention of pneumococcal AOM will be a highly relevant contributor to cost-effectiveness analyses for the anticipated introduction of PCV15 (Merck) and PCV20 (Pfizer). Both PCV15 and PCV20 have been licensed for adult use; PCV15 licensure for infants and children occurred in June 2022 for invasive pneumococcal disease and is anticipated in the near future for PCV20. They are improvements over PCV13 because they add serotypes that cause invasive pneumococcal diseases, although less so for prevention of AOM, on the basis of our data.

Nasopharyngeal colonization is a necessary pathogenic step in progression to pneumococcal disease. However, not all strains of pneumococci expressing different capsular serotypes are equally virulent and likely to cause disease. In PCV-vaccinated populations, vaccine pressure and antibiotic resistance drive PCV serotype replacement with nonvaccine serotypes (NVTs), gradually reducing the net effectiveness of the vaccines. Therefore, knowledge of prevalent NVTs colonizing the nasopharynx identifies future pneumococcal serotypes most likely to emerge as pathogenic.

We published an effectiveness study of PCV13.³ A relative reduction of 86% in AOM caused by strains expressing PCV13 serotypes was observed in the first few years after PCV13 introduction. The greatest reduction in MEF samples was in serotype 19A, with a relative reduction of 91%. However, over time the vaccine type efficacy of PCV13 against MEF-positive pneumococcal AOM has eroded. There was no clear efficacy against serotype 3, and we still observed cases of serotype 19A and 19F. PCV13 vaccine failures have been even more frequent in Europe (nearly 30% of pneumococcal AOM in Europe is caused by vaccine serotypes) than our data indicate, where about 10% of AOM is caused by PCV13 serotypes.

In our most recent publication covering 2015-2019, we described results from 589 children, aged 6-36 months, from whom we collected 2,042 nasopharyngeal samples.^2,4 During AOM, 495 MEF samples from 319 AOM-infected children were collected (during bilateral infections, tympanocentesis was performed in both ears). Whether bacteria were isolated was based per AOM case, not per tap. The average age of children with AOM was 15 months (range 6-31 months). The three most prevalent nasopharyngeal pneumococcal serotypes were 35B, 23B, and 15B/C. Serotype 35B was the most common at AOM visits in both the nasopharynx and MEF samples followed by serotype 15B/C. Nonsusceptibility among pneumococci to penicillin, azithromycin, and multiple other antibiotics was high. Increasing resistance to ceftriaxone was also observed.

Based on our results, if PCV15 (PCV13 + 22F and 33F) effectiveness is identical to PCV13 for the included serotypes and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes is presumed, PCV15 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 8%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 6%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3%. As for the projected reductions brought about by PCV20 (PCV15 + 8, 10A, 11A, 12F, and 15B), presuming serotype 15B is efficacious against serotype 15C and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes, PCV20 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 22%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 20%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3% (Figure).

The CDC estimated that, in 2004, pneumococcal disease in the United States caused 4 million illness episodes, 22,000 deaths, 445,000 hospitalizations, 774,000 emergency department visits, 5 million outpatient visits, and 4.1 million outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. Direct medical costs totaled $3.5 billion. Pneumonia (866,000 cases) accounted for 22% of all cases and 72% of pneumococcal costs. AOM and sinusitis (1.5 million cases each) composed 75% of cases and 16% of direct medical costs.⁵ However, if indirect costs are taken into account, such as work loss by parents of young children, the cost of pneumococcal disease caused by AOM alone may exceed $6 billion annually⁶ and become dominant in the cost-effectiveness analysis in high-income countries.

Despite widespread use of PCV13, Pneumococcus has shown its resilience under vaccine pressure such that the organism remains a very common AOM pathogen. All-cause AOM has declined modestly and pneumococcal AOM caused by the specific serotypes in PCVs has declined dramatically since the introduction of PCVs. However, the burden of pneumococcal AOM disease is still considerable.

The notion that strains expressing serotypes that were not included in PCV7 were less virulent was proven wrong within a few years after introduction of PCV7, with the emergence of strains expressing serotype 19A, and others. The same cycle occurred after introduction of PCV13. It appears to take about 4 years after introduction of a PCV before peak effectiveness is achieved – which then begins to erode with emergence of NVTs. First, the NVTs are observed to colonize the nasopharynx as commensals and then from among those strains new disease-causing strains emerge.

At the most recent meeting of the International Society of Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases in Toronto in June, many presentations focused on the fact that PCVs elicit highly effective protective serotype-specific antibodies to the capsular polysaccharides of included types. However, 100 serotypes are known. The limitations of PCVs are becoming increasingly apparent. They are costly and consume a large portion of the Vaccines for Children budget. Children in the developing world remain largely unvaccinated because of the high cost. NVTs that have emerged to cause disease vary by country, vary by adult vs. pediatric populations, and are dynamically changing year to year. Forthcoming PCVs of 15 and 20 serotypes will be even more costly than PCV13, will not include many newly emerged serotypes, and will probably likewise encounter “serotype replacement” because of high immune evasion by pneumococci.

When Merck and Pfizer made their decisions on serotype composition for PCV15 and PCV20, respectively, they were based on available data at the time regarding predominant serotypes causing invasive pneumococcal disease in countries that had the best data and would be the market for their products. However, from the time of the decision to licensure of vaccine is many years, and during that time the pneumococcal serotypes have changed, more so for AOM, and I predict more change will occur in the future.

In the past 3 years, Dr. Pichichero has received honoraria from Merck to attend 1-day consulting meetings and his institution has received investigator-initiated research grants to study aspects of PCV15. In the past 3 years, he was reimbursed for expenses to attend the ISPPD meeting in Toronto to present a poster on potential efficacy of PCV20 to prevent complicated AOM.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3).

2. Kaur R et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;41:37-44..

3. Pichichero M et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2(8):561-8.

4. Zhou F et al. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):253-60.

5. Huang SS et al. Vaccine. 2011;29(18):3398-412.

6. Casey JR and Pichichero ME. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014;53(9):865-73. .
 

My group in Rochester, N.Y., examined the current pneumococcal serotypes causing AOM in children. From our data, we can determine the PCV13 vaccine types that escape prevention and cause AOM and understand what effect to expect from the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) that will be coming soon. There are limited data from middle ear fluid (MEF) cultures on which to base such analyses. Tympanocentesis is the preferred method for securing MEF for culture and our group is unique in providing such data to the Centers for Disease Control and publishing our results on a periodic basis to inform clinicians.

Pneumococci are the second most common cause of acute otitis media (AOM) since the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) more than 2 decades ago.^1,2 Pneumococcal AOM causes more severe acute disease and more often causes suppurative complications than Haemophilus influenzae, which is the most common cause of AOM. Prevention of pneumococcal AOM will be a highly relevant contributor to cost-effectiveness analyses for the anticipated introduction of PCV15 (Merck) and PCV20 (Pfizer). Both PCV15 and PCV20 have been licensed for adult use; PCV15 licensure for infants and children occurred in June 2022 for invasive pneumococcal disease and is anticipated in the near future for PCV20. They are improvements over PCV13 because they add serotypes that cause invasive pneumococcal diseases, although less so for prevention of AOM, on the basis of our data.

Nasopharyngeal colonization is a necessary pathogenic step in progression to pneumococcal disease. However, not all strains of pneumococci expressing different capsular serotypes are equally virulent and likely to cause disease. In PCV-vaccinated populations, vaccine pressure and antibiotic resistance drive PCV serotype replacement with nonvaccine serotypes (NVTs), gradually reducing the net effectiveness of the vaccines. Therefore, knowledge of prevalent NVTs colonizing the nasopharynx identifies future pneumococcal serotypes most likely to emerge as pathogenic.

We published an effectiveness study of PCV13.³ A relative reduction of 86% in AOM caused by strains expressing PCV13 serotypes was observed in the first few years after PCV13 introduction. The greatest reduction in MEF samples was in serotype 19A, with a relative reduction of 91%. However, over time the vaccine type efficacy of PCV13 against MEF-positive pneumococcal AOM has eroded. There was no clear efficacy against serotype 3, and we still observed cases of serotype 19A and 19F. PCV13 vaccine failures have been even more frequent in Europe (nearly 30% of pneumococcal AOM in Europe is caused by vaccine serotypes) than our data indicate, where about 10% of AOM is caused by PCV13 serotypes.

In our most recent publication covering 2015-2019, we described results from 589 children, aged 6-36 months, from whom we collected 2,042 nasopharyngeal samples.^2,4 During AOM, 495 MEF samples from 319 AOM-infected children were collected (during bilateral infections, tympanocentesis was performed in both ears). Whether bacteria were isolated was based per AOM case, not per tap. The average age of children with AOM was 15 months (range 6-31 months). The three most prevalent nasopharyngeal pneumococcal serotypes were 35B, 23B, and 15B/C. Serotype 35B was the most common at AOM visits in both the nasopharynx and MEF samples followed by serotype 15B/C. Nonsusceptibility among pneumococci to penicillin, azithromycin, and multiple other antibiotics was high. Increasing resistance to ceftriaxone was also observed.

Based on our results, if PCV15 (PCV13 + 22F and 33F) effectiveness is identical to PCV13 for the included serotypes and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes is presumed, PCV15 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 8%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 6%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3%. As for the projected reductions brought about by PCV20 (PCV15 + 8, 10A, 11A, 12F, and 15B), presuming serotype 15B is efficacious against serotype 15C and 100% efficacy for the added serotypes, PCV20 will reduce pneumococcal AOMs by 22%, pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events at onset of AOM by 20%, and pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization events during health by 3% (Figure).

The CDC estimated that, in 2004, pneumococcal disease in the United States caused 4 million illness episodes, 22,000 deaths, 445,000 hospitalizations, 774,000 emergency department visits, 5 million outpatient visits, and 4.1 million outpatient antibiotic prescriptions. Direct medical costs totaled $3.5 billion. Pneumonia (866,000 cases) accounted for 22% of all cases and 72% of pneumococcal costs. AOM and sinusitis (1.5 million cases each) composed 75% of cases and 16% of direct medical costs.⁵ However, if indirect costs are taken into account, such as work loss by parents of young children, the cost of pneumococcal disease caused by AOM alone may exceed $6 billion annually⁶ and become dominant in the cost-effectiveness analysis in high-income countries.

Despite widespread use of PCV13, Pneumococcus has shown its resilience under vaccine pressure such that the organism remains a very common AOM pathogen. All-cause AOM has declined modestly and pneumococcal AOM caused by the specific serotypes in PCVs has declined dramatically since the introduction of PCVs. However, the burden of pneumococcal AOM disease is still considerable.

The notion that strains expressing serotypes that were not included in PCV7 were less virulent was proven wrong within a few years after introduction of PCV7, with the emergence of strains expressing serotype 19A, and others. The same cycle occurred after introduction of PCV13. It appears to take about 4 years after introduction of a PCV before peak effectiveness is achieved – which then begins to erode with emergence of NVTs. First, the NVTs are observed to colonize the nasopharynx as commensals and then from among those strains new disease-causing strains emerge.

At the most recent meeting of the International Society of Pneumococci and Pneumococcal Diseases in Toronto in June, many presentations focused on the fact that PCVs elicit highly effective protective serotype-specific antibodies to the capsular polysaccharides of included types. However, 100 serotypes are known. The limitations of PCVs are becoming increasingly apparent. They are costly and consume a large portion of the Vaccines for Children budget. Children in the developing world remain largely unvaccinated because of the high cost. NVTs that have emerged to cause disease vary by country, vary by adult vs. pediatric populations, and are dynamically changing year to year. Forthcoming PCVs of 15 and 20 serotypes will be even more costly than PCV13, will not include many newly emerged serotypes, and will probably likewise encounter “serotype replacement” because of high immune evasion by pneumococci.

When Merck and Pfizer made their decisions on serotype composition for PCV15 and PCV20, respectively, they were based on available data at the time regarding predominant serotypes causing invasive pneumococcal disease in countries that had the best data and would be the market for their products. However, from the time of the decision to licensure of vaccine is many years, and during that time the pneumococcal serotypes have changed, more so for AOM, and I predict more change will occur in the future.

In the past 3 years, Dr. Pichichero has received honoraria from Merck to attend 1-day consulting meetings and his institution has received investigator-initiated research grants to study aspects of PCV15. In the past 3 years, he was reimbursed for expenses to attend the ISPPD meeting in Toronto to present a poster on potential efficacy of PCV20 to prevent complicated AOM.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3).

2. Kaur R et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;41:37-44..

3. Pichichero M et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2(8):561-8.

4. Zhou F et al. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):253-60.

5. Huang SS et al. Vaccine. 2011;29(18):3398-412.

6. Casey JR and Pichichero ME. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2014;53(9):865-73. .
 

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

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

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

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

I’m pretty sure my ancestors came from Europe. And, as far as I know, I have no relatives in Australia. But, I must have some cosmic relationship with the Land Down Under because as I review articles for these columns I have an uncanny attraction to those coming out of Australia. Most of them are about sleep, one of my obsessions, and in general they address simple questions that no one has thought to ask.

My most recent Australia-based nugget appeared in the August edition of Pediatrics.

The researchers in Sidney were seeking to define “growing pains” by embarking on an extensive review of the medical literature. Beginning with thousands of articles, they winnowed these down to 145 studies. They found “there was extremely poor consensus between studies.” The most consistent components were the lower limb, bilaterality, evening onset, a normal physical assessment, and an episodic or recurrent course. However, all of these factors were mentioned in 50% or less of the articles they reviewed. The investigators wisely concluded that clinicians “should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.”

This may seem like one small step for pediatrics. You may have reassured parents that none of your patients ever died of “growing pains” and the condition would eventually resolve. Hopefully, you were correct and that your case rate fatality is zero. But I suspect it wouldn’t take too long to unearth a wealth of malpractices cases in which another pediatrician’s patient died with an illness whose eventual discovery was tragically delayed by a period of false reassurance and diagnosis that the child merely had growing pains.

I can’t remember which of my sage instructors told me to never use “growing pains” as a diagnosis. It may have just been something I stumbled upon as my clinical experience grew. While holding firm to my commitment to never use it as a diagnosis, it became abundantly clear that I was seeing a large group of children (toddlers to early adolescents) who were experiencing lower leg pains in the early evening, often bad enough to wake them.

It took a bit longer to discover that most often these painful episodes occurred in children who were acutely or chronically sleep deprived. Occasionally, the pain would come on days in which the child had been unusually physically active. However, in most cases there was little correlation with lower limb activity.

I will admit that my observations were colored by my growing obsession that sleep deprivation is the root of many evils, including the phenomenon known as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I was even bold enough to include it in my one of the books I have written (Is My Child Overtired? Simon & Schuster, 2001). Nonetheless, I am still convinced that every investigation of a child with evening leg pains should include a thorough history of the child’s sleep history.

The bottom line is that these Australian researchers have done us a great favor with their research. However, I think they should have made a bolder statement in their conclusion. It is clear to me that “growing pains” should be removed as a diagnosis and no longer be reimbursed by third-party payers.

The void created by that action should spur some research into a better-defined diagnosis of the condition. If you want to use my tack and label it “nocturnal leg pains of childhood” and suggest better sleep hygiene, I will be flattered. But more importantly, take the time to take a good history, do a thorough exam, and then follow up, follow up, follow up, until the problem resolves.
 

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

Parents are relieved when school starts up again in the fall. Kids also are eager to see their friends and go on to the next level of learning.

Or are they?

This year brings a greater mix of feelings than usual for many families.

Many parents and children have new worries: Are children going to be safe at school from COVID, bullies, and shooters? Are they going to be ready to learn at this next level after the intermittent schooling of the past 2+ pandemic years of Zoom school, home school, or no school? Are they going to be able to separate after months of closeness/entanglement? Are they going to be able to catch up academically and fit in socially?

Children may have additional worries about how they have changed over the pandemic. Will my former friends still accept me now that I am heavier, showing puberty, experiencing acne, or feeling depressed or anxious?

While most of these worries occurred in some form after other summer breaks, they may be exacerbated by the length and degree of uncertainty we have all been through.

Often, health supervision visits are happy reunions with our patients when we hear about their growth and goals. We hope that is true this year, too, but we need to be vigilant and open to discussing the worries just mentioned.

What can we do to help ease this magnified transition?

First, we need to be open to their worries. Echoing back their concerns and noting how they are understandable and common can be reassuring when families have been isolated and missing interactions that might have made this clear. Second, we can remind them of the steps that assist in any transition. Now more than ever they need to collect information by visiting the new classroom, meeting teachers, and attending open house meet-and-greets. Older students may do better by looking over textbooks or a syllabus to see what will be covered. Making an effort to meet kids and families new to the school is a kind gesture but also helps the experienced child take some initiative and feel more confident.

Setting up an organizational system for homework from the start is valuable as work gets harder and is especially important for kids with ADHD. Single-subject folders, an assignment book tracking short-term and long-term projects, a plan for a specific homework time and place, a bookbag checklist by the door, or even a homework buddy and duplicate textbooks may be needed. Any kind of active steps toward organization can reduce anxiety.

Third, adjusting to the new schedule can take time. The most important adjustment is resetting the child’s sleep-wake cycle. You can recommend a move of 1 hour per day closer to the required wake up time and a corresponding bedtime that affords at least 8 hours (for tweens and teens; 9-12 hours for younger children), then maintaining the sleep schedule within 1 hour 7 days per week. Keep phones and tablets out of the bedroom. If children over 4 (including teens) have been napping over the summer, this needs to stop. Shifting mealtimes to fit the new schedule helps. Ensuring that lights are dimmed in the evening and bright in the morning has been shown to help the brain adjust.

A “new school year” is a good time for families to set new goals. Summer is often a time of fun, freedom, and new things. Parents may need your encouragement to exert leadership after months of cutting slack for their kids during COVID. Setting new goals such as greater responsibilities, music lessons, or household rules can be balanced by higher allowance and new earned privileges. Planning things to look forward to in the new year can be a family activity with a pleasant tone rather than just evoking protest. Suggest involving everyone in brainstorming crazy, out-of-the-box ideas (large and small) without censorship at first – for instance, go on a Mars mission; have pizza for breakfast; get yoga lessons; borrow binoculars to see Saturn; have a dog party! Everyone should be heard and their creativity celebrated. The list can then be narrowed down and marked on a calendar, starting soon.

Wait, you are hearing, how do we get our child off media to achieve this? Changing the rules about media use is never easy, and more now than ever. It is not just that kids are addicted to media, but it has been their main connection to peers during the pandemic. The “information” about/from peers, cliques, bullies, and world news may also be contributing to anxiety about returning to school. They may feel that they “need to know” even though it is upsetting. You can help kids verbalize the pros and cons of media use and possible addiction for themselves. How important media is to them needs to be acknowledged but ownership of the device and the final rules about this life-altering exposure must belong to the parents.

Sharing the AAP Family Media Plan to set proportions of time for school, homework, exercise, media (less than 2 hours for nonhomework), fun, and sleep can set an objective structure for the conversation. Parents may need to change their own media habits too!

While we pediatricians may normalize worries to reassure patients and parents, we also need to be alert to children and families in need of help. Many children have developed significant anxiety, depression, or substance use during the pandemic while out of our oversight but may not bring it up. Bereavement, which affected so many families during the pandemic, may not resolve smoothly. Families may have lost support, jobs, housing, or health insurance and need help connecting with assistance. Use of screening tools can ensure these are not missed, while remembering that functional impairment (social, academic, daily living, distress) is what differentiates normal from abnormal. We may be able to counsel them ourselves or refer them.

All this may be happening for you and your family, too. It can be difficult to assist others when we are struggling ourselves. We have been called on to cope when everything has been uncertain and our patients are sad, angry, or distrustful, with no end to the stress in sight. Sharing with colleagues, taking a break, or getting help for yourself may need to be a new goal for the school year, too.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Parents are relieved when school starts up again in the fall. Kids also are eager to see their friends and go on to the next level of learning.

Or are they?

This year brings a greater mix of feelings than usual for many families.

Many parents and children have new worries: Are children going to be safe at school from COVID, bullies, and shooters? Are they going to be ready to learn at this next level after the intermittent schooling of the past 2+ pandemic years of Zoom school, home school, or no school? Are they going to be able to separate after months of closeness/entanglement? Are they going to be able to catch up academically and fit in socially?

Children may have additional worries about how they have changed over the pandemic. Will my former friends still accept me now that I am heavier, showing puberty, experiencing acne, or feeling depressed or anxious?

While most of these worries occurred in some form after other summer breaks, they may be exacerbated by the length and degree of uncertainty we have all been through.

Often, health supervision visits are happy reunions with our patients when we hear about their growth and goals. We hope that is true this year, too, but we need to be vigilant and open to discussing the worries just mentioned.

What can we do to help ease this magnified transition?

First, we need to be open to their worries. Echoing back their concerns and noting how they are understandable and common can be reassuring when families have been isolated and missing interactions that might have made this clear. Second, we can remind them of the steps that assist in any transition. Now more than ever they need to collect information by visiting the new classroom, meeting teachers, and attending open house meet-and-greets. Older students may do better by looking over textbooks or a syllabus to see what will be covered. Making an effort to meet kids and families new to the school is a kind gesture but also helps the experienced child take some initiative and feel more confident.

Setting up an organizational system for homework from the start is valuable as work gets harder and is especially important for kids with ADHD. Single-subject folders, an assignment book tracking short-term and long-term projects, a plan for a specific homework time and place, a bookbag checklist by the door, or even a homework buddy and duplicate textbooks may be needed. Any kind of active steps toward organization can reduce anxiety.

Third, adjusting to the new schedule can take time. The most important adjustment is resetting the child’s sleep-wake cycle. You can recommend a move of 1 hour per day closer to the required wake up time and a corresponding bedtime that affords at least 8 hours (for tweens and teens; 9-12 hours for younger children), then maintaining the sleep schedule within 1 hour 7 days per week. Keep phones and tablets out of the bedroom. If children over 4 (including teens) have been napping over the summer, this needs to stop. Shifting mealtimes to fit the new schedule helps. Ensuring that lights are dimmed in the evening and bright in the morning has been shown to help the brain adjust.

A “new school year” is a good time for families to set new goals. Summer is often a time of fun, freedom, and new things. Parents may need your encouragement to exert leadership after months of cutting slack for their kids during COVID. Setting new goals such as greater responsibilities, music lessons, or household rules can be balanced by higher allowance and new earned privileges. Planning things to look forward to in the new year can be a family activity with a pleasant tone rather than just evoking protest. Suggest involving everyone in brainstorming crazy, out-of-the-box ideas (large and small) without censorship at first – for instance, go on a Mars mission; have pizza for breakfast; get yoga lessons; borrow binoculars to see Saturn; have a dog party! Everyone should be heard and their creativity celebrated. The list can then be narrowed down and marked on a calendar, starting soon.

Wait, you are hearing, how do we get our child off media to achieve this? Changing the rules about media use is never easy, and more now than ever. It is not just that kids are addicted to media, but it has been their main connection to peers during the pandemic. The “information” about/from peers, cliques, bullies, and world news may also be contributing to anxiety about returning to school. They may feel that they “need to know” even though it is upsetting. You can help kids verbalize the pros and cons of media use and possible addiction for themselves. How important media is to them needs to be acknowledged but ownership of the device and the final rules about this life-altering exposure must belong to the parents.

Sharing the AAP Family Media Plan to set proportions of time for school, homework, exercise, media (less than 2 hours for nonhomework), fun, and sleep can set an objective structure for the conversation. Parents may need to change their own media habits too!

While we pediatricians may normalize worries to reassure patients and parents, we also need to be alert to children and families in need of help. Many children have developed significant anxiety, depression, or substance use during the pandemic while out of our oversight but may not bring it up. Bereavement, which affected so many families during the pandemic, may not resolve smoothly. Families may have lost support, jobs, housing, or health insurance and need help connecting with assistance. Use of screening tools can ensure these are not missed, while remembering that functional impairment (social, academic, daily living, distress) is what differentiates normal from abnormal. We may be able to counsel them ourselves or refer them.

All this may be happening for you and your family, too. It can be difficult to assist others when we are struggling ourselves. We have been called on to cope when everything has been uncertain and our patients are sad, angry, or distrustful, with no end to the stress in sight. Sharing with colleagues, taking a break, or getting help for yourself may need to be a new goal for the school year, too.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Parents are relieved when school starts up again in the fall. Kids also are eager to see their friends and go on to the next level of learning.

Or are they?

This year brings a greater mix of feelings than usual for many families.

Many parents and children have new worries: Are children going to be safe at school from COVID, bullies, and shooters? Are they going to be ready to learn at this next level after the intermittent schooling of the past 2+ pandemic years of Zoom school, home school, or no school? Are they going to be able to separate after months of closeness/entanglement? Are they going to be able to catch up academically and fit in socially?

Children may have additional worries about how they have changed over the pandemic. Will my former friends still accept me now that I am heavier, showing puberty, experiencing acne, or feeling depressed or anxious?

While most of these worries occurred in some form after other summer breaks, they may be exacerbated by the length and degree of uncertainty we have all been through.

Often, health supervision visits are happy reunions with our patients when we hear about their growth and goals. We hope that is true this year, too, but we need to be vigilant and open to discussing the worries just mentioned.

What can we do to help ease this magnified transition?

First, we need to be open to their worries. Echoing back their concerns and noting how they are understandable and common can be reassuring when families have been isolated and missing interactions that might have made this clear. Second, we can remind them of the steps that assist in any transition. Now more than ever they need to collect information by visiting the new classroom, meeting teachers, and attending open house meet-and-greets. Older students may do better by looking over textbooks or a syllabus to see what will be covered. Making an effort to meet kids and families new to the school is a kind gesture but also helps the experienced child take some initiative and feel more confident.

Setting up an organizational system for homework from the start is valuable as work gets harder and is especially important for kids with ADHD. Single-subject folders, an assignment book tracking short-term and long-term projects, a plan for a specific homework time and place, a bookbag checklist by the door, or even a homework buddy and duplicate textbooks may be needed. Any kind of active steps toward organization can reduce anxiety.

Third, adjusting to the new schedule can take time. The most important adjustment is resetting the child’s sleep-wake cycle. You can recommend a move of 1 hour per day closer to the required wake up time and a corresponding bedtime that affords at least 8 hours (for tweens and teens; 9-12 hours for younger children), then maintaining the sleep schedule within 1 hour 7 days per week. Keep phones and tablets out of the bedroom. If children over 4 (including teens) have been napping over the summer, this needs to stop. Shifting mealtimes to fit the new schedule helps. Ensuring that lights are dimmed in the evening and bright in the morning has been shown to help the brain adjust.

A “new school year” is a good time for families to set new goals. Summer is often a time of fun, freedom, and new things. Parents may need your encouragement to exert leadership after months of cutting slack for their kids during COVID. Setting new goals such as greater responsibilities, music lessons, or household rules can be balanced by higher allowance and new earned privileges. Planning things to look forward to in the new year can be a family activity with a pleasant tone rather than just evoking protest. Suggest involving everyone in brainstorming crazy, out-of-the-box ideas (large and small) without censorship at first – for instance, go on a Mars mission; have pizza for breakfast; get yoga lessons; borrow binoculars to see Saturn; have a dog party! Everyone should be heard and their creativity celebrated. The list can then be narrowed down and marked on a calendar, starting soon.

Wait, you are hearing, how do we get our child off media to achieve this? Changing the rules about media use is never easy, and more now than ever. It is not just that kids are addicted to media, but it has been their main connection to peers during the pandemic. The “information” about/from peers, cliques, bullies, and world news may also be contributing to anxiety about returning to school. They may feel that they “need to know” even though it is upsetting. You can help kids verbalize the pros and cons of media use and possible addiction for themselves. How important media is to them needs to be acknowledged but ownership of the device and the final rules about this life-altering exposure must belong to the parents.

Sharing the AAP Family Media Plan to set proportions of time for school, homework, exercise, media (less than 2 hours for nonhomework), fun, and sleep can set an objective structure for the conversation. Parents may need to change their own media habits too!

While we pediatricians may normalize worries to reassure patients and parents, we also need to be alert to children and families in need of help. Many children have developed significant anxiety, depression, or substance use during the pandemic while out of our oversight but may not bring it up. Bereavement, which affected so many families during the pandemic, may not resolve smoothly. Families may have lost support, jobs, housing, or health insurance and need help connecting with assistance. Use of screening tools can ensure these are not missed, while remembering that functional impairment (social, academic, daily living, distress) is what differentiates normal from abnormal. We may be able to counsel them ourselves or refer them.

All this may be happening for you and your family, too. It can be difficult to assist others when we are struggling ourselves. We have been called on to cope when everything has been uncertain and our patients are sad, angry, or distrustful, with no end to the stress in sight. Sharing with colleagues, taking a break, or getting help for yourself may need to be a new goal for the school year, too.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

Recently Sermo had an interesting case report. A young woman, a few hours after undergoing cupping and acupuncture to her upper back, developed dyspnea and presented to the emergency department. There she was found to have a pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement.

I’m certainly not an expert on pneumothoraces, cupping, or acupuncture. Maybe the occurrence is coincidental, though it certainly is temporally concerning.

If I were to cause a pneumothorax doing an electromyography and nerve conduction velocity of the chest wall or upper back, I’m sure I’d have a lot to answer for. Beyond just arranging care for the patient and explaining things to her and her family members, I’d probably have to deal with a board investigation and/or malpractice claim.

Yet, in my experience, people who provide such services rarely face legal accountability, whereas their counterparts in allopathic medicine regularly do so. How many late-night TV attorney ads have you seen that say “have you been injured by an acupuncturist?”

Me, neither.

I’m not going to go into the questions of whether acupuncture, or even cupping, do anything at all. But this case also raises the point that people tend to think of “alternative” medical treatments as things that, while of unclear benefit, are generally harmless.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a risk-free medical procedure. There probably never will be. No matter how well trained and intentioned the person doing it is, there is always the chance of something going wrong. Human error, mechanical failure, bad luck. As they say, dung happens.

In medicine we think about the risk-benefit ratio and proceed accordingly. But the risk, no matter how low, is never zero. People need to understand this applies to pretty much everything health-related. Even over-the-counter supplements, no matter how great their claims may sound (also unproven) have their issues.

Caveat emptor.

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

Recently Sermo had an interesting case report. A young woman, a few hours after undergoing cupping and acupuncture to her upper back, developed dyspnea and presented to the emergency department. There she was found to have a pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement.

I’m certainly not an expert on pneumothoraces, cupping, or acupuncture. Maybe the occurrence is coincidental, though it certainly is temporally concerning.

If I were to cause a pneumothorax doing an electromyography and nerve conduction velocity of the chest wall or upper back, I’m sure I’d have a lot to answer for. Beyond just arranging care for the patient and explaining things to her and her family members, I’d probably have to deal with a board investigation and/or malpractice claim.

Yet, in my experience, people who provide such services rarely face legal accountability, whereas their counterparts in allopathic medicine regularly do so. How many late-night TV attorney ads have you seen that say “have you been injured by an acupuncturist?”

Me, neither.

I’m not going to go into the questions of whether acupuncture, or even cupping, do anything at all. But this case also raises the point that people tend to think of “alternative” medical treatments as things that, while of unclear benefit, are generally harmless.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a risk-free medical procedure. There probably never will be. No matter how well trained and intentioned the person doing it is, there is always the chance of something going wrong. Human error, mechanical failure, bad luck. As they say, dung happens.

In medicine we think about the risk-benefit ratio and proceed accordingly. But the risk, no matter how low, is never zero. People need to understand this applies to pretty much everything health-related. Even over-the-counter supplements, no matter how great their claims may sound (also unproven) have their issues.

Caveat emptor.

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

Recently Sermo had an interesting case report. A young woman, a few hours after undergoing cupping and acupuncture to her upper back, developed dyspnea and presented to the emergency department. There she was found to have a pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement.

I’m certainly not an expert on pneumothoraces, cupping, or acupuncture. Maybe the occurrence is coincidental, though it certainly is temporally concerning.

If I were to cause a pneumothorax doing an electromyography and nerve conduction velocity of the chest wall or upper back, I’m sure I’d have a lot to answer for. Beyond just arranging care for the patient and explaining things to her and her family members, I’d probably have to deal with a board investigation and/or malpractice claim.

Yet, in my experience, people who provide such services rarely face legal accountability, whereas their counterparts in allopathic medicine regularly do so. How many late-night TV attorney ads have you seen that say “have you been injured by an acupuncturist?”

Me, neither.

I’m not going to go into the questions of whether acupuncture, or even cupping, do anything at all. But this case also raises the point that people tend to think of “alternative” medical treatments as things that, while of unclear benefit, are generally harmless.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a risk-free medical procedure. There probably never will be. No matter how well trained and intentioned the person doing it is, there is always the chance of something going wrong. Human error, mechanical failure, bad luck. As they say, dung happens.

In medicine we think about the risk-benefit ratio and proceed accordingly. But the risk, no matter how low, is never zero. People need to understand this applies to pretty much everything health-related. Even over-the-counter supplements, no matter how great their claims may sound (also unproven) have their issues.

Caveat emptor.

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

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Pain is classified as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3-6 months (“Classification of chronic pain” 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994). This universally accepted definition does not distinguish between physical and emotional pain. Categorically, pain is pain. Two prevalent chronic gynecologic diseases are closely related medically and emotionally. Forty percent to 50% of women with endometriosis have infertility; 30%-50% of women with infertility are found to have coexisting endometriosis. The approach to both is, typically, symptomatic treatment. In this month’s column, I examine the relationship between these ailments and how we can advise women on management.

Endometriosis is simply defined as the displacement of normal endometrial glands and stroma from their natural anatomical location to elsewhere in the body. With the recent identification of the disease in the spleen, endometriosis has been found in every organ system. Endometriosis is identified in 6%-10% of the general female population. The prevalence ranges from 2% to 11% among asymptomatic women and from 5% to 21% in women hospitalized for pelvic pain (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15). Compared with fertile women, infertile women are six to eight times more likely to have endometriosis (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Retrograde menstruation is the presumed theory for the origins of endometriosis, that is, the reflux of menstrual debris containing active endometrial cells through the fallopian tubes into the peritoneal cavity (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927;14:422-69). Because of the varied etiologies of the most common symptoms of endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, and infertility, women visit, on average, seven physicians before being diagnosed (Fertil Steril. 2011;96:366). The delay in promptly identifying endometriosis is further impaired by the lack of specific biomarkers, awareness, and inadequate evaluation (N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1244-56).

The 2008 U.S. health care costs for endometriosis were approximately $4,000 per affected woman, analogous to the costs for other chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis (Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1292-9). The management of symptoms further increases the financial burden because of the effect of the disease on physical, mental, sexual, and social well-being, as well as productivity (Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17:123).

We have known the paradoxical relationship between the stage of endometriosis and symptoms: Women with low-stage disease may present with severe pain and/or infertility but those with advanced-stage disease may be asymptomatic. Endometriotic cells and tissue elicit a localized immune and inflammatory response with the production of cytokines, chemokines, and prostaglandins. Given the usual intra-abdominal location and the small size of implants, endometriosis requires a surgical diagnosis, ideally with histopathology for confirmation. However, imaging – transvaginal ultrasound or MRI – has more than 90% sensitivity and specificity for identifying endometriomas (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2[2]:CD009591).

The effect of endometriosis on fertility, particularly in women with minimal to mild stages, is not clear, and many studies have been retrospective. Tubal factor infertility can be a result of endometriosis. Per the 2020 Cochrane Database Systemic Reviews (2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031), “Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis; no data were reported on live birth. There is moderate-quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only.” In women undergoing IVF, more advanced stages of endometriosis have reduced pregnancy outcomes as shown in recent meta-analyses (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:79-88).

The revised ASRM (rASRM) surgical staging classification of endometriosis has been widely used to describe the degree, although it poorly correlates with fertility potential (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8). Women diagnosed with endometriosis may benefit from the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010 as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and intrauterine insemination) based on patient characteristics, rASRM staging and “least function” score of the adnexa (Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1609-15).

Compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. “Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct;2020[10]:CD011031).”

The treatment of endometriosis is directly related to the desire for and timing of fertility since therapy is often contraceptive, as opposed to surgery. Because endometriosis is exacerbated by estradiol, the mainstay of medical therapy is initially combined hormonal or progestin-only contraception as a means of reducing pelvic pain by reducing estradiol production and action, respectively. GnRH-agonist suppression of follicle stimulation hormone and luteinizing hormone remains the standard for inactivating endogenous estradiol. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved elagolix for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis – the first pill specifically approved for endometriosis pain relief. An off-label approach for women is letrozole, the aromatase inhibitor, to reduce circulating estradiol levels. Unfortunately, estradiol suppression cannot be used solely long term without add-back therapy, because of the risk of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms.

Excision of endometriomas adversely affects ovarian follicular reserve (as indicated by lower levels of anti-müllerian hormone and reduced ovarian antral follicle counts on ultrasound). For women who want to preserve their fertility, the potential benefits of surgery should be weighed against these negative effects. Surgical treatment of endometriosis in women without other identifiable infertility factors may improve rates of spontaneous pregnancy. In women with moderate to severe endometriosis, intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation may be of value, particularly with preceding GnRH-agonist therapy (J Endometr Pelvic Pain Disord. 2018;10[3]:158-73).

Despite the reduction in IVF outcomes in women with moderate to severe endometriosis, it remains unclear whether surgery improves the likelihood of pregnancy with IVF as does the concurrent use of prolonged GnRH agonist during IVF stimulation. (Fertil Steril. 2012;98:591-8).

Summary

• Medical therapy alone does not appear to improve fertility in endometriosis.
• Surgical treatment of endometriosis improves natural fertility, particularly in lower-stage endometriosis.
• EFI is a useful tool to predict postoperative natural fertility and assess the need for IVF.
• Despite advanced endometriosis reducing IVF outcomes, surgery or medical pretreatment to increase IVF success remains unproven.

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Many psychiatrists have had the grim experience of a newly referred patient explaining that her (and it is most often “her”) primary care doctor has been prescribing lorazepam 8 mg per day or alprazolam 6 mg per day and is sending her to you for help with ongoing anxiety. For conscientious psychiatrists, this means the beginning of a long tapering process along with a great deal of reassuring of a patient who is terrified of feeling overwhelmed with anxiety. The same problem occurs with patients taking large doses of sedatives who are still unable to sleep.

Mark Olfson and coauthors quantified benzodiazepine use in the United States in 2008 using a large prescription database, and found that 5.2% of adults between 18 and 80 years old were taking these drugs.¹ The percentage increased with age, to 8.7% of those 65-80 years, in whom 31% received long-term prescriptions from a psychiatrist. Benzodiazepine use was twice as prevalent in women, compared with men. This occurs despite peer-reviewed publications and articles in the popular press regarding the risks of long-term benzodiazepine use in the elderly. Fang-Yu Lin and coauthors documented a 2.23-fold higher risk of hip fracture in zolpidem users that increased with age; elderly users had a 21-fold higher incidence of fracture, compared with younger users, and were twice as likely to sustain a fracture than elderly nonusers.²

Rashona Thomas and Edid Ramos-Rivas reviewed the risks of benzodiazepines in older patients with insomnia and document the increase in serious adverse events such as falls, fractures, and cognitive and behavioral changes.³ Many patients have ongoing prescriptions that make discontinuation difficult, given the potential for withdrawal agitation, seizures, insomnia, nightmares and even psychosis.

Greta Bushnell and coauthors pointed to the problem of simultaneous prescribing of a new antidepressant with a benzodiazepine by 10% of doctors initiating antidepressants.⁴ Over 12% of this group of patients continued benzodiazepines long term, even though there was no difference in the response to antidepressant treatment at 6 months. Those with long-term benzodiazepine use were also more likely to have recent prescriptions for opiates.

A Finnish research team found that 34% of middle-aged and 55% of elderly people developed long-term use of benzodiazepines after an initial prescription.⁵ Those who became long-term users were more often older male receivers of social benefits, with psychiatric comorbidities and substance abuse histories.

Kevin Xu and coauthors reviewed a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset from 1999 to 2015 with follow-up on over 5,000 individuals in that period.⁶ They found doubling of all-cause mortality in users of benzodiazepines with or without accompanying use of opiates, a statistically significant increase.

Perhaps most alarming is the increased risk for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis in users of benzodiazepines. Two separate studies (Billoti de Gage and colleagues and Ettcheto and colleagues^7,8) provided reviews of evidence for the relationship between use of benzodiazepines and development of dementia, and repeated warnings about close monitoring of patients and the need for alternative treatments for anxiety and insomnia in the elderly.
 

Be alert to underlying issues

Overburdened primary practitioners faced with complaints about sleep and anxiety understandably turn to medication rather than taking time to discuss the reasons for these problems or to describe nonmedication approaches to relief of symptoms. Even insured patients may have very limited options for “covered” psychiatric consultation, as many competent psychiatrists have moved to a cash-only system. It is easier to renew prescriptions than to counsel patients or refer them, and many primary care practitioners have limited experience with diagnosing causes of anxiety and insomnia, much less alternative medication approaches.

Psychiatrists should be aware of the frequency of underlying mood disorders that include sleep and anxiety as prominent symptoms; in fact, these symptoms are often what motivates patients to pursue treatment. It is critical to obtain not only a personal history of symptoms beginning in childhood up to the present, but also a family history of mood and anxiety problems. Mood dysregulation disorders are highly hereditary and a family history of mania or psychosis should raise concern about the cause of symptoms in one’s patient. A strong personal and/or family history of alcohol abuse and dependence may cover underlying undiagnosed mood dysregulation. Primary care physicians may not recognize mood dysregulation unless a patient is clearly manic or psychotic.

There is a cohort of patients who do well on antidepressant medication, but anorgasmia, fatigue, and emotional blunting are common side effects that affect compliance. When patients have unexpected responses to SSRI medications such as euphoria, agitation, anxiety, insomnia, and more prominent mood swings, primary care physicians may add a benzodiazepine, expecting the problem to abate with time. Unfortunately, this often leads to ongoing use of benzodiazepines, since attempts to stop them causes withdrawal effects that are indistinguishable from the original anxiety symptoms.

Most psychiatrists are aware that some patients need mood stabilization rather than mood elevation to maintain an adequate baseline mood. Lithium, anticonvulsants, and second-generation antipsychotics may be effective without adding antidepressant medication. Managing dosing and side effects requires time for follow-up visits with patients after initiating treatment but leads to more stability and better outcomes.

Benzodiazepines are appropriate and helpful in situations that cause transient anxiety and with patients who have done poorly with other options. Intermittent use is key to avoiding tolerance and inevitable dose increases. Some individuals can take low daily doses that are harmless, though these likely only prevent withdrawal rather than preventing anxiety. The placebo effect of taking a pill is powerful. And some patients take more doses than they admit to. Most practitioners have heard stories about the alprazolam that was accidentally spilled into the sink or the prescription bottle of diazepam that was lost or the lorazepam supply that was stolen by the babysitter.

These concepts are illustrated in case examples below.
 

Case one

Ms. A, a 55-year-old married female business administrator, admitted to using zolpidem at 40 mg per night for the past several months. She began with the typical dose of 10 mg at bedtime prescribed by her internist, but after several weeks, needed an additional 10 mg at 2 a.m. to stay asleep. As weeks passed, she found that she needed an additional 20 mg when she awoke at 2 a.m. Within months, she needed 20 mg to initiate sleep and 20 mg to maintain sleep. She obtained extra zolpidem from her gynecologist and came for consultation when refill requests were refused.

Ms. A had a family history of high anxiety in her mother and depressed mood in multiple paternal relatives, including her father. She had trouble sleeping beginning in adolescence, significant premenstrual dysphoria, and postpartum depression that led to a prescription for sertraline. Instead of feeling better, Ms. A remembers being agitated and unable to sleep, so she stopped it. Ms. A was now perimenopausal, and insomnia was worse. She had gradually increased wine consumption to a bottle of wine each night after work to “settle down.” This allowed her to fall asleep, but she inevitably awoke within 4 hours. Her internist noted an elevation in ALT and asked Ms. A about alcohol consumption. She was alarmed and cut back to one glass of wine per night but again couldn’t sleep. Her internist started zolpidem at that point.

The psychiatrist explained the concepts of tolerance and addiction and a plan to slowly taper off zolpidem while using quetiapine for sleep. She decreased to 20 mg of zolpidem at bedtime with quetiapine 50 mg and was able to stay asleep. After 3 weeks, Ms. A took zolpidem 10 mg at bedtime with quetiapine 75 mg and again, was able to fall asleep and stay asleep. After another 3 weeks, she increased quetiapine to 100 mg and stopped zolpidem without difficulty. This dose of quetiapine has continued to work well without significant side effects.
 

Case two

Ms. B, a 70-year-old married housewife, was referred for help with longstanding anxiety when her primary care doctor recognized that lorazepam, initially helpful at 1 mg twice daily, had required titration to 2 mg three times daily. Ms. B was preoccupied with having lorazepam on hand and never missed a dose. She had little interest in activities beyond her home, rarely socialized, and had fallen twice. She napped for 2 hours each afternoon, and sometimes had trouble staying asleep through the night.

Ms. B was reluctant to talk about her childhood history of hostility and undermining by her mother, who clearly preferred her older brother and was competitive with Ms. B. Her father traveled for work during the week and had little time for her. Ms. B had always seen herself as stupid and unlovable, which interfered with making friends. She attended college for 1 year but dropped out to marry her husband. He was also anxious and had difficulty socializing, but they found reassurance in each other. Their only child, a son in his 40s, was estranged from them, having married a woman who disliked Ms. B. Ms. B felt hopeless about developing a relationship with her grandchildren who were rarely allowed to visit. Despite her initial shame in talking about these painful problems, Ms. B realized that she felt better and scheduled monthly visits to check in.

Ms. B understood the risks of using lorazepam and wanted to stop it but was terrified of becoming anxious again. We set up a very slow tapering schedule that lowered her total dose by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. At the same time, she began escitalopram which was effective at 20 mg. Ms. B noted that she no longer felt anxious upon awakening but was still afraid to miss a dose of lorazepam. As she felt more confident and alert, Ms. B joined a painting class at a local community center and was gratified to find that she was good at working with watercolors. She invited her neighbors to come for dinner and was surprised at how friendly and open they were. Once she had tapered to 1 mg twice daily, Ms. B began walking for exercise as she now had enough energy that it felt good to move around. After 6 months, she was completely off lorazepam, and very grateful to have discovered her capacity to improve her pleasure in life.
 

Case three

Ms. C, a 48-year-old attorney was referred for help with anxiety and distress in the face of separation from her husband who had admitted to an affair after she heard him talking to his girlfriend from their basement. She was unsure whether she wanted to save the marriage or end it and was horrified at the thought of dating. She had never felt especially anxious or depressed and had a supportive circle of close friends. She was uncharacteristically unable to concentrate long enough to consider her options because of anxiety.

A dose of clonazepam 0.5 mg allowed her to stay alert but calm enough to reflect on her feelings. She used it intermittently over several months and maintained regular individual psychotherapy sessions that allowed her to review the situation thoroughly. On her psychiatrist’s recommendation, she contacted a colleague to represent her if she decided to initiate divorce proceedings. She attempted to engage her husband in marital therapy, and his reluctance made it clear to her that she could no longer trust him. Ms. C offered him the option of a dissolution if he was willing to cooperate, or to sue for divorce if not. Once Ms. C regained her confidence and recognized that she would survive this emotionally fraught situation, she no longer needed clonazepam.
 

Summary

Benzodiazepines are particularly ill-suited to scheduled use since the risk of tolerance, escalating doses, and psychological addiction along with pharmacologic tolerance is high. The risks, which include cognitive slowing, falls and fractures, and withdrawal phenomena when abruptly stopped, make this class dangerous for all patients but particularly the elderly. Benzodiazepines are nonetheless useful medications for patients able to use them intermittently, whether on an alternating basis with other medications (for example, quetiapine alternating with clonazepam for chronic insomnia) or because symptoms of anxiety are intermittent. Psychiatrists treating tolerant patients should be familiar with the approach of tapering slowly while introducing more appropriate medications at adequate doses to manage symptoms.

Dr. Kaplan is training and supervising psychoanalyst at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute and volunteer professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. The author reported no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Olfson M et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;72(2):136-42. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1763.

2. Lin FY et al. Sleep. 2014 Apr 1;37(4):673-9. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3566.

3. Thomas R and Ramos-Rivas E. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(6):266-70. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20180513-01.

4. Bushnell GA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;74(7):747-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1273.

5. Taipale H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2019029. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19029.

6. Xu KY et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028557. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28557.

7. Billioti de Gage S et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g5205. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

8. Ettcheto M et al. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020 Jan 8;11:344. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00344.

Many psychiatrists have had the grim experience of a newly referred patient explaining that her (and it is most often “her”) primary care doctor has been prescribing lorazepam 8 mg per day or alprazolam 6 mg per day and is sending her to you for help with ongoing anxiety. For conscientious psychiatrists, this means the beginning of a long tapering process along with a great deal of reassuring of a patient who is terrified of feeling overwhelmed with anxiety. The same problem occurs with patients taking large doses of sedatives who are still unable to sleep.

Mark Olfson and coauthors quantified benzodiazepine use in the United States in 2008 using a large prescription database, and found that 5.2% of adults between 18 and 80 years old were taking these drugs.¹ The percentage increased with age, to 8.7% of those 65-80 years, in whom 31% received long-term prescriptions from a psychiatrist. Benzodiazepine use was twice as prevalent in women, compared with men. This occurs despite peer-reviewed publications and articles in the popular press regarding the risks of long-term benzodiazepine use in the elderly. Fang-Yu Lin and coauthors documented a 2.23-fold higher risk of hip fracture in zolpidem users that increased with age; elderly users had a 21-fold higher incidence of fracture, compared with younger users, and were twice as likely to sustain a fracture than elderly nonusers.²

Rashona Thomas and Edid Ramos-Rivas reviewed the risks of benzodiazepines in older patients with insomnia and document the increase in serious adverse events such as falls, fractures, and cognitive and behavioral changes.³ Many patients have ongoing prescriptions that make discontinuation difficult, given the potential for withdrawal agitation, seizures, insomnia, nightmares and even psychosis.

Greta Bushnell and coauthors pointed to the problem of simultaneous prescribing of a new antidepressant with a benzodiazepine by 10% of doctors initiating antidepressants.⁴ Over 12% of this group of patients continued benzodiazepines long term, even though there was no difference in the response to antidepressant treatment at 6 months. Those with long-term benzodiazepine use were also more likely to have recent prescriptions for opiates.

A Finnish research team found that 34% of middle-aged and 55% of elderly people developed long-term use of benzodiazepines after an initial prescription.⁵ Those who became long-term users were more often older male receivers of social benefits, with psychiatric comorbidities and substance abuse histories.

Kevin Xu and coauthors reviewed a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset from 1999 to 2015 with follow-up on over 5,000 individuals in that period.⁶ They found doubling of all-cause mortality in users of benzodiazepines with or without accompanying use of opiates, a statistically significant increase.

Perhaps most alarming is the increased risk for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis in users of benzodiazepines. Two separate studies (Billoti de Gage and colleagues and Ettcheto and colleagues^7,8) provided reviews of evidence for the relationship between use of benzodiazepines and development of dementia, and repeated warnings about close monitoring of patients and the need for alternative treatments for anxiety and insomnia in the elderly.
 

Be alert to underlying issues

Overburdened primary practitioners faced with complaints about sleep and anxiety understandably turn to medication rather than taking time to discuss the reasons for these problems or to describe nonmedication approaches to relief of symptoms. Even insured patients may have very limited options for “covered” psychiatric consultation, as many competent psychiatrists have moved to a cash-only system. It is easier to renew prescriptions than to counsel patients or refer them, and many primary care practitioners have limited experience with diagnosing causes of anxiety and insomnia, much less alternative medication approaches.

Psychiatrists should be aware of the frequency of underlying mood disorders that include sleep and anxiety as prominent symptoms; in fact, these symptoms are often what motivates patients to pursue treatment. It is critical to obtain not only a personal history of symptoms beginning in childhood up to the present, but also a family history of mood and anxiety problems. Mood dysregulation disorders are highly hereditary and a family history of mania or psychosis should raise concern about the cause of symptoms in one’s patient. A strong personal and/or family history of alcohol abuse and dependence may cover underlying undiagnosed mood dysregulation. Primary care physicians may not recognize mood dysregulation unless a patient is clearly manic or psychotic.

There is a cohort of patients who do well on antidepressant medication, but anorgasmia, fatigue, and emotional blunting are common side effects that affect compliance. When patients have unexpected responses to SSRI medications such as euphoria, agitation, anxiety, insomnia, and more prominent mood swings, primary care physicians may add a benzodiazepine, expecting the problem to abate with time. Unfortunately, this often leads to ongoing use of benzodiazepines, since attempts to stop them causes withdrawal effects that are indistinguishable from the original anxiety symptoms.

Most psychiatrists are aware that some patients need mood stabilization rather than mood elevation to maintain an adequate baseline mood. Lithium, anticonvulsants, and second-generation antipsychotics may be effective without adding antidepressant medication. Managing dosing and side effects requires time for follow-up visits with patients after initiating treatment but leads to more stability and better outcomes.

Benzodiazepines are appropriate and helpful in situations that cause transient anxiety and with patients who have done poorly with other options. Intermittent use is key to avoiding tolerance and inevitable dose increases. Some individuals can take low daily doses that are harmless, though these likely only prevent withdrawal rather than preventing anxiety. The placebo effect of taking a pill is powerful. And some patients take more doses than they admit to. Most practitioners have heard stories about the alprazolam that was accidentally spilled into the sink or the prescription bottle of diazepam that was lost or the lorazepam supply that was stolen by the babysitter.

These concepts are illustrated in case examples below.
 

Case one

Ms. A, a 55-year-old married female business administrator, admitted to using zolpidem at 40 mg per night for the past several months. She began with the typical dose of 10 mg at bedtime prescribed by her internist, but after several weeks, needed an additional 10 mg at 2 a.m. to stay asleep. As weeks passed, she found that she needed an additional 20 mg when she awoke at 2 a.m. Within months, she needed 20 mg to initiate sleep and 20 mg to maintain sleep. She obtained extra zolpidem from her gynecologist and came for consultation when refill requests were refused.

Ms. A had a family history of high anxiety in her mother and depressed mood in multiple paternal relatives, including her father. She had trouble sleeping beginning in adolescence, significant premenstrual dysphoria, and postpartum depression that led to a prescription for sertraline. Instead of feeling better, Ms. A remembers being agitated and unable to sleep, so she stopped it. Ms. A was now perimenopausal, and insomnia was worse. She had gradually increased wine consumption to a bottle of wine each night after work to “settle down.” This allowed her to fall asleep, but she inevitably awoke within 4 hours. Her internist noted an elevation in ALT and asked Ms. A about alcohol consumption. She was alarmed and cut back to one glass of wine per night but again couldn’t sleep. Her internist started zolpidem at that point.

The psychiatrist explained the concepts of tolerance and addiction and a plan to slowly taper off zolpidem while using quetiapine for sleep. She decreased to 20 mg of zolpidem at bedtime with quetiapine 50 mg and was able to stay asleep. After 3 weeks, Ms. A took zolpidem 10 mg at bedtime with quetiapine 75 mg and again, was able to fall asleep and stay asleep. After another 3 weeks, she increased quetiapine to 100 mg and stopped zolpidem without difficulty. This dose of quetiapine has continued to work well without significant side effects.
 

Case two

Ms. B, a 70-year-old married housewife, was referred for help with longstanding anxiety when her primary care doctor recognized that lorazepam, initially helpful at 1 mg twice daily, had required titration to 2 mg three times daily. Ms. B was preoccupied with having lorazepam on hand and never missed a dose. She had little interest in activities beyond her home, rarely socialized, and had fallen twice. She napped for 2 hours each afternoon, and sometimes had trouble staying asleep through the night.

Ms. B was reluctant to talk about her childhood history of hostility and undermining by her mother, who clearly preferred her older brother and was competitive with Ms. B. Her father traveled for work during the week and had little time for her. Ms. B had always seen herself as stupid and unlovable, which interfered with making friends. She attended college for 1 year but dropped out to marry her husband. He was also anxious and had difficulty socializing, but they found reassurance in each other. Their only child, a son in his 40s, was estranged from them, having married a woman who disliked Ms. B. Ms. B felt hopeless about developing a relationship with her grandchildren who were rarely allowed to visit. Despite her initial shame in talking about these painful problems, Ms. B realized that she felt better and scheduled monthly visits to check in.

Ms. B understood the risks of using lorazepam and wanted to stop it but was terrified of becoming anxious again. We set up a very slow tapering schedule that lowered her total dose by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. At the same time, she began escitalopram which was effective at 20 mg. Ms. B noted that she no longer felt anxious upon awakening but was still afraid to miss a dose of lorazepam. As she felt more confident and alert, Ms. B joined a painting class at a local community center and was gratified to find that she was good at working with watercolors. She invited her neighbors to come for dinner and was surprised at how friendly and open they were. Once she had tapered to 1 mg twice daily, Ms. B began walking for exercise as she now had enough energy that it felt good to move around. After 6 months, she was completely off lorazepam, and very grateful to have discovered her capacity to improve her pleasure in life.
 

Case three

Ms. C, a 48-year-old attorney was referred for help with anxiety and distress in the face of separation from her husband who had admitted to an affair after she heard him talking to his girlfriend from their basement. She was unsure whether she wanted to save the marriage or end it and was horrified at the thought of dating. She had never felt especially anxious or depressed and had a supportive circle of close friends. She was uncharacteristically unable to concentrate long enough to consider her options because of anxiety.

A dose of clonazepam 0.5 mg allowed her to stay alert but calm enough to reflect on her feelings. She used it intermittently over several months and maintained regular individual psychotherapy sessions that allowed her to review the situation thoroughly. On her psychiatrist’s recommendation, she contacted a colleague to represent her if she decided to initiate divorce proceedings. She attempted to engage her husband in marital therapy, and his reluctance made it clear to her that she could no longer trust him. Ms. C offered him the option of a dissolution if he was willing to cooperate, or to sue for divorce if not. Once Ms. C regained her confidence and recognized that she would survive this emotionally fraught situation, she no longer needed clonazepam.
 

Summary

Benzodiazepines are particularly ill-suited to scheduled use since the risk of tolerance, escalating doses, and psychological addiction along with pharmacologic tolerance is high. The risks, which include cognitive slowing, falls and fractures, and withdrawal phenomena when abruptly stopped, make this class dangerous for all patients but particularly the elderly. Benzodiazepines are nonetheless useful medications for patients able to use them intermittently, whether on an alternating basis with other medications (for example, quetiapine alternating with clonazepam for chronic insomnia) or because symptoms of anxiety are intermittent. Psychiatrists treating tolerant patients should be familiar with the approach of tapering slowly while introducing more appropriate medications at adequate doses to manage symptoms.

Dr. Kaplan is training and supervising psychoanalyst at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute and volunteer professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. The author reported no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Olfson M et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;72(2):136-42. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1763.

2. Lin FY et al. Sleep. 2014 Apr 1;37(4):673-9. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3566.

3. Thomas R and Ramos-Rivas E. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(6):266-70. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20180513-01.

4. Bushnell GA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;74(7):747-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1273.

5. Taipale H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2019029. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19029.

6. Xu KY et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028557. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28557.

7. Billioti de Gage S et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g5205. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

8. Ettcheto M et al. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020 Jan 8;11:344. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00344.

Many psychiatrists have had the grim experience of a newly referred patient explaining that her (and it is most often “her”) primary care doctor has been prescribing lorazepam 8 mg per day or alprazolam 6 mg per day and is sending her to you for help with ongoing anxiety. For conscientious psychiatrists, this means the beginning of a long tapering process along with a great deal of reassuring of a patient who is terrified of feeling overwhelmed with anxiety. The same problem occurs with patients taking large doses of sedatives who are still unable to sleep.

Mark Olfson and coauthors quantified benzodiazepine use in the United States in 2008 using a large prescription database, and found that 5.2% of adults between 18 and 80 years old were taking these drugs.¹ The percentage increased with age, to 8.7% of those 65-80 years, in whom 31% received long-term prescriptions from a psychiatrist. Benzodiazepine use was twice as prevalent in women, compared with men. This occurs despite peer-reviewed publications and articles in the popular press regarding the risks of long-term benzodiazepine use in the elderly. Fang-Yu Lin and coauthors documented a 2.23-fold higher risk of hip fracture in zolpidem users that increased with age; elderly users had a 21-fold higher incidence of fracture, compared with younger users, and were twice as likely to sustain a fracture than elderly nonusers.²

Rashona Thomas and Edid Ramos-Rivas reviewed the risks of benzodiazepines in older patients with insomnia and document the increase in serious adverse events such as falls, fractures, and cognitive and behavioral changes.³ Many patients have ongoing prescriptions that make discontinuation difficult, given the potential for withdrawal agitation, seizures, insomnia, nightmares and even psychosis.

Greta Bushnell and coauthors pointed to the problem of simultaneous prescribing of a new antidepressant with a benzodiazepine by 10% of doctors initiating antidepressants.⁴ Over 12% of this group of patients continued benzodiazepines long term, even though there was no difference in the response to antidepressant treatment at 6 months. Those with long-term benzodiazepine use were also more likely to have recent prescriptions for opiates.

A Finnish research team found that 34% of middle-aged and 55% of elderly people developed long-term use of benzodiazepines after an initial prescription.⁵ Those who became long-term users were more often older male receivers of social benefits, with psychiatric comorbidities and substance abuse histories.

Kevin Xu and coauthors reviewed a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey dataset from 1999 to 2015 with follow-up on over 5,000 individuals in that period.⁶ They found doubling of all-cause mortality in users of benzodiazepines with or without accompanying use of opiates, a statistically significant increase.

Perhaps most alarming is the increased risk for Alzheimer’s dementia diagnosis in users of benzodiazepines. Two separate studies (Billoti de Gage and colleagues and Ettcheto and colleagues^7,8) provided reviews of evidence for the relationship between use of benzodiazepines and development of dementia, and repeated warnings about close monitoring of patients and the need for alternative treatments for anxiety and insomnia in the elderly.
 

Be alert to underlying issues

Overburdened primary practitioners faced with complaints about sleep and anxiety understandably turn to medication rather than taking time to discuss the reasons for these problems or to describe nonmedication approaches to relief of symptoms. Even insured patients may have very limited options for “covered” psychiatric consultation, as many competent psychiatrists have moved to a cash-only system. It is easier to renew prescriptions than to counsel patients or refer them, and many primary care practitioners have limited experience with diagnosing causes of anxiety and insomnia, much less alternative medication approaches.

Psychiatrists should be aware of the frequency of underlying mood disorders that include sleep and anxiety as prominent symptoms; in fact, these symptoms are often what motivates patients to pursue treatment. It is critical to obtain not only a personal history of symptoms beginning in childhood up to the present, but also a family history of mood and anxiety problems. Mood dysregulation disorders are highly hereditary and a family history of mania or psychosis should raise concern about the cause of symptoms in one’s patient. A strong personal and/or family history of alcohol abuse and dependence may cover underlying undiagnosed mood dysregulation. Primary care physicians may not recognize mood dysregulation unless a patient is clearly manic or psychotic.

There is a cohort of patients who do well on antidepressant medication, but anorgasmia, fatigue, and emotional blunting are common side effects that affect compliance. When patients have unexpected responses to SSRI medications such as euphoria, agitation, anxiety, insomnia, and more prominent mood swings, primary care physicians may add a benzodiazepine, expecting the problem to abate with time. Unfortunately, this often leads to ongoing use of benzodiazepines, since attempts to stop them causes withdrawal effects that are indistinguishable from the original anxiety symptoms.

Most psychiatrists are aware that some patients need mood stabilization rather than mood elevation to maintain an adequate baseline mood. Lithium, anticonvulsants, and second-generation antipsychotics may be effective without adding antidepressant medication. Managing dosing and side effects requires time for follow-up visits with patients after initiating treatment but leads to more stability and better outcomes.

Benzodiazepines are appropriate and helpful in situations that cause transient anxiety and with patients who have done poorly with other options. Intermittent use is key to avoiding tolerance and inevitable dose increases. Some individuals can take low daily doses that are harmless, though these likely only prevent withdrawal rather than preventing anxiety. The placebo effect of taking a pill is powerful. And some patients take more doses than they admit to. Most practitioners have heard stories about the alprazolam that was accidentally spilled into the sink or the prescription bottle of diazepam that was lost or the lorazepam supply that was stolen by the babysitter.

These concepts are illustrated in case examples below.
 

Case one

Ms. A, a 55-year-old married female business administrator, admitted to using zolpidem at 40 mg per night for the past several months. She began with the typical dose of 10 mg at bedtime prescribed by her internist, but after several weeks, needed an additional 10 mg at 2 a.m. to stay asleep. As weeks passed, she found that she needed an additional 20 mg when she awoke at 2 a.m. Within months, she needed 20 mg to initiate sleep and 20 mg to maintain sleep. She obtained extra zolpidem from her gynecologist and came for consultation when refill requests were refused.

Ms. A had a family history of high anxiety in her mother and depressed mood in multiple paternal relatives, including her father. She had trouble sleeping beginning in adolescence, significant premenstrual dysphoria, and postpartum depression that led to a prescription for sertraline. Instead of feeling better, Ms. A remembers being agitated and unable to sleep, so she stopped it. Ms. A was now perimenopausal, and insomnia was worse. She had gradually increased wine consumption to a bottle of wine each night after work to “settle down.” This allowed her to fall asleep, but she inevitably awoke within 4 hours. Her internist noted an elevation in ALT and asked Ms. A about alcohol consumption. She was alarmed and cut back to one glass of wine per night but again couldn’t sleep. Her internist started zolpidem at that point.

The psychiatrist explained the concepts of tolerance and addiction and a plan to slowly taper off zolpidem while using quetiapine for sleep. She decreased to 20 mg of zolpidem at bedtime with quetiapine 50 mg and was able to stay asleep. After 3 weeks, Ms. A took zolpidem 10 mg at bedtime with quetiapine 75 mg and again, was able to fall asleep and stay asleep. After another 3 weeks, she increased quetiapine to 100 mg and stopped zolpidem without difficulty. This dose of quetiapine has continued to work well without significant side effects.
 

Case two

Ms. B, a 70-year-old married housewife, was referred for help with longstanding anxiety when her primary care doctor recognized that lorazepam, initially helpful at 1 mg twice daily, had required titration to 2 mg three times daily. Ms. B was preoccupied with having lorazepam on hand and never missed a dose. She had little interest in activities beyond her home, rarely socialized, and had fallen twice. She napped for 2 hours each afternoon, and sometimes had trouble staying asleep through the night.

Ms. B was reluctant to talk about her childhood history of hostility and undermining by her mother, who clearly preferred her older brother and was competitive with Ms. B. Her father traveled for work during the week and had little time for her. Ms. B had always seen herself as stupid and unlovable, which interfered with making friends. She attended college for 1 year but dropped out to marry her husband. He was also anxious and had difficulty socializing, but they found reassurance in each other. Their only child, a son in his 40s, was estranged from them, having married a woman who disliked Ms. B. Ms. B felt hopeless about developing a relationship with her grandchildren who were rarely allowed to visit. Despite her initial shame in talking about these painful problems, Ms. B realized that she felt better and scheduled monthly visits to check in.

Ms. B understood the risks of using lorazepam and wanted to stop it but was terrified of becoming anxious again. We set up a very slow tapering schedule that lowered her total dose by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. At the same time, she began escitalopram which was effective at 20 mg. Ms. B noted that she no longer felt anxious upon awakening but was still afraid to miss a dose of lorazepam. As she felt more confident and alert, Ms. B joined a painting class at a local community center and was gratified to find that she was good at working with watercolors. She invited her neighbors to come for dinner and was surprised at how friendly and open they were. Once she had tapered to 1 mg twice daily, Ms. B began walking for exercise as she now had enough energy that it felt good to move around. After 6 months, she was completely off lorazepam, and very grateful to have discovered her capacity to improve her pleasure in life.
 

Case three

Ms. C, a 48-year-old attorney was referred for help with anxiety and distress in the face of separation from her husband who had admitted to an affair after she heard him talking to his girlfriend from their basement. She was unsure whether she wanted to save the marriage or end it and was horrified at the thought of dating. She had never felt especially anxious or depressed and had a supportive circle of close friends. She was uncharacteristically unable to concentrate long enough to consider her options because of anxiety.

A dose of clonazepam 0.5 mg allowed her to stay alert but calm enough to reflect on her feelings. She used it intermittently over several months and maintained regular individual psychotherapy sessions that allowed her to review the situation thoroughly. On her psychiatrist’s recommendation, she contacted a colleague to represent her if she decided to initiate divorce proceedings. She attempted to engage her husband in marital therapy, and his reluctance made it clear to her that she could no longer trust him. Ms. C offered him the option of a dissolution if he was willing to cooperate, or to sue for divorce if not. Once Ms. C regained her confidence and recognized that she would survive this emotionally fraught situation, she no longer needed clonazepam.
 

Summary

Benzodiazepines are particularly ill-suited to scheduled use since the risk of tolerance, escalating doses, and psychological addiction along with pharmacologic tolerance is high. The risks, which include cognitive slowing, falls and fractures, and withdrawal phenomena when abruptly stopped, make this class dangerous for all patients but particularly the elderly. Benzodiazepines are nonetheless useful medications for patients able to use them intermittently, whether on an alternating basis with other medications (for example, quetiapine alternating with clonazepam for chronic insomnia) or because symptoms of anxiety are intermittent. Psychiatrists treating tolerant patients should be familiar with the approach of tapering slowly while introducing more appropriate medications at adequate doses to manage symptoms.

Dr. Kaplan is training and supervising psychoanalyst at the Cincinnati Psychoanalytic Institute and volunteer professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. The author reported no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.

References

1. Olfson M et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;72(2):136-42. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1763.

2. Lin FY et al. Sleep. 2014 Apr 1;37(4):673-9. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3566.

3. Thomas R and Ramos-Rivas E. Psychiatr Ann. 2018;48(6):266-70. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20180513-01.

4. Bushnell GA et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;74(7):747-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1273.

5. Taipale H et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2019029. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19029.

6. Xu KY et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2028557. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28557.

7. Billioti de Gage S et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g5205. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

8. Ettcheto M et al. Front Aging Neurosci. 2020 Jan 8;11:344. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00344.

News reports this week indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Cassava Sciences over the investigational Alzheimer’s disease agent simufilam. An article in Science alleged that the company’s research included altered or duplicated brain images.

Cassava, not surprisingly, denies this. And I’m not going to take sides. Maybe they’ll be exonerated, maybe not.

But the bigger point here is the importance of checking such things. Alzheimer’s disease, beyond being a horrible neurological disease, is also big money. REALLY big money. If a company were to develop a truly effective treatment for it, they’d be poised to reap a worldwide financial windfall.

I’m not criticizing that, either. If such a drug were to be developed, with all of the time and money that goes into such things, they’d have earned every penny.

But the financial incentives certainly do increase the risk of less-than-ethical behavior. This isn’t just in Alzheimer’s disease, but across the board in medicine. The main plot line of the 1993 Harrison Ford flick “The Fugitive” was based on a drug company using falsified data, bribes, and other criminal activities (like murder) to bring a potentially dangerous (but high-profit) drug to market.

Less-than-ethical behavior is not new in research either. In 1926 Paul Kammerer’s attempt to prove Lamarckian evolution was shown to be a fraud. Cover-ups of potentially dangerous drugs have also occurred, or been alleged, and resulted in some being withdrawn from the market.

I’m not sure this is any worse than the multitude of over-the-counter products I see in the store saying they promote brain health, joint health, immune health, whatever ... then, in tiny letters, adding “these statements have not been authorized by the FDA. This drug is not intended to cure, prevent, or treat any disease.” This is no different than guys selling snake oil and other worthless elixirs out of a horse-drawn wagon. Why they aren’t regulated in the same way Pfizer or Lilly are is beyond me.

Even beyond the old method of making up figures, data can still be iffy. We use the phrase “numbers don’t lie” – and generally they don’t – but the ability to “spin” them to suit any narrative has become an art form. If you can’t change the data, make them fit into a better scenario. Somehow.

Which brings me back to why it’s critically important that such studies be open to review by people who don’t have a conflict of interest in the success or failure of the drugs. No matter how well-intentioned a company and its scientists may be, no person is entirely immune to the pressures involved to succeed. And there are many: from shareholders, from executives, even from the knowledge that a bad outcome may mean they’re out of a job.

Fraud is nothing new in medicine. I also don’t see it going away anytime in the future. It’s not the nature of medicine, but it is the nature of some people. And a few of them increase the need for legitimacy in everyone else.

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

News reports this week indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Cassava Sciences over the investigational Alzheimer’s disease agent simufilam. An article in Science alleged that the company’s research included altered or duplicated brain images.

Cassava, not surprisingly, denies this. And I’m not going to take sides. Maybe they’ll be exonerated, maybe not.

But the bigger point here is the importance of checking such things. Alzheimer’s disease, beyond being a horrible neurological disease, is also big money. REALLY big money. If a company were to develop a truly effective treatment for it, they’d be poised to reap a worldwide financial windfall.

I’m not criticizing that, either. If such a drug were to be developed, with all of the time and money that goes into such things, they’d have earned every penny.

But the financial incentives certainly do increase the risk of less-than-ethical behavior. This isn’t just in Alzheimer’s disease, but across the board in medicine. The main plot line of the 1993 Harrison Ford flick “The Fugitive” was based on a drug company using falsified data, bribes, and other criminal activities (like murder) to bring a potentially dangerous (but high-profit) drug to market.

Less-than-ethical behavior is not new in research either. In 1926 Paul Kammerer’s attempt to prove Lamarckian evolution was shown to be a fraud. Cover-ups of potentially dangerous drugs have also occurred, or been alleged, and resulted in some being withdrawn from the market.

I’m not sure this is any worse than the multitude of over-the-counter products I see in the store saying they promote brain health, joint health, immune health, whatever ... then, in tiny letters, adding “these statements have not been authorized by the FDA. This drug is not intended to cure, prevent, or treat any disease.” This is no different than guys selling snake oil and other worthless elixirs out of a horse-drawn wagon. Why they aren’t regulated in the same way Pfizer or Lilly are is beyond me.

Even beyond the old method of making up figures, data can still be iffy. We use the phrase “numbers don’t lie” – and generally they don’t – but the ability to “spin” them to suit any narrative has become an art form. If you can’t change the data, make them fit into a better scenario. Somehow.

Which brings me back to why it’s critically important that such studies be open to review by people who don’t have a conflict of interest in the success or failure of the drugs. No matter how well-intentioned a company and its scientists may be, no person is entirely immune to the pressures involved to succeed. And there are many: from shareholders, from executives, even from the knowledge that a bad outcome may mean they’re out of a job.

Fraud is nothing new in medicine. I also don’t see it going away anytime in the future. It’s not the nature of medicine, but it is the nature of some people. And a few of them increase the need for legitimacy in everyone else.

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

News reports this week indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Cassava Sciences over the investigational Alzheimer’s disease agent simufilam. An article in Science alleged that the company’s research included altered or duplicated brain images.

Cassava, not surprisingly, denies this. And I’m not going to take sides. Maybe they’ll be exonerated, maybe not.

But the bigger point here is the importance of checking such things. Alzheimer’s disease, beyond being a horrible neurological disease, is also big money. REALLY big money. If a company were to develop a truly effective treatment for it, they’d be poised to reap a worldwide financial windfall.

I’m not criticizing that, either. If such a drug were to be developed, with all of the time and money that goes into such things, they’d have earned every penny.

But the financial incentives certainly do increase the risk of less-than-ethical behavior. This isn’t just in Alzheimer’s disease, but across the board in medicine. The main plot line of the 1993 Harrison Ford flick “The Fugitive” was based on a drug company using falsified data, bribes, and other criminal activities (like murder) to bring a potentially dangerous (but high-profit) drug to market.

Less-than-ethical behavior is not new in research either. In 1926 Paul Kammerer’s attempt to prove Lamarckian evolution was shown to be a fraud. Cover-ups of potentially dangerous drugs have also occurred, or been alleged, and resulted in some being withdrawn from the market.

I’m not sure this is any worse than the multitude of over-the-counter products I see in the store saying they promote brain health, joint health, immune health, whatever ... then, in tiny letters, adding “these statements have not been authorized by the FDA. This drug is not intended to cure, prevent, or treat any disease.” This is no different than guys selling snake oil and other worthless elixirs out of a horse-drawn wagon. Why they aren’t regulated in the same way Pfizer or Lilly are is beyond me.

Even beyond the old method of making up figures, data can still be iffy. We use the phrase “numbers don’t lie” – and generally they don’t – but the ability to “spin” them to suit any narrative has become an art form. If you can’t change the data, make them fit into a better scenario. Somehow.

Which brings me back to why it’s critically important that such studies be open to review by people who don’t have a conflict of interest in the success or failure of the drugs. No matter how well-intentioned a company and its scientists may be, no person is entirely immune to the pressures involved to succeed. And there are many: from shareholders, from executives, even from the knowledge that a bad outcome may mean they’re out of a job.

Fraud is nothing new in medicine. I also don’t see it going away anytime in the future. It’s not the nature of medicine, but it is the nature of some people. And a few of them increase the need for legitimacy in everyone else.

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

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.

As I prepared to write my monthly column, I came across the statistic that 23% of physicians and 40% of nurses plan to leave their practices in the next 2 years.¹

Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).

I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.

I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
 

Surgeon general’s burnout report

The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.² It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:

1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.

2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.

3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.

4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.

5. There are health workforce shortages.

The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.

Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
 

The empathy drain

One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.

With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.

The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.

It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.

A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.

A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
 

Takeaways

So what do we do?

Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.

Reach out to people you care about.

We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.

2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.