Opinion

Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer saves lives. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with annual screening over 3 years with low-dose CT as compared with x-rays. The NELSON trial found a higher benefit: Men at high risk for lung cancer had a 26% reduced risk of dying from lung cancer and women had a 61% reduced risk over 10 years. However, the 2022 American Lung Association State of Lung Cancer report shows that less than 6% of eligible people get screened. Why is this?

There are many reasons, but I submit that at least one hurdle is related to the difficulties associated with ordering the low-dose CT in the electronic medical record (EMR) and following the results. The rules and regulations around lung cancer screening are complex. First, the ordering provider must be able to determine if the patient is eligible for screening and has insurance coverage – a complicated procedure, which is constantly in flux, and is based on age, smoking history, smoke-free interval, and type of insurance coverage. Most EMRs do not have a way of flagging high-risk individuals, and clinic coordinators (for those practices that have one) are often put in charge of determining eligibility.

Secondly, the health care provider must order the scan. Unlike mammography, people must have a prescreening visit with a physician or other health care provider – a visit which is poorly compensated, and often must be supported by the institution. Many EMRs also do not have a smooth mechanism to make sure all the “boxes have been checked” before the scan can be ordered. Is there a complete smoking history? Has the patient had their prescreening visit? Has the patient been counseled regarding tobacco use? Has eligibility for insurance payment been confirmed?

Coordinating follow-up is cumbersome. Abnormal findings are common and usually nonmalignant, but must be followed up, and the follow-up recommendations are complicated and are based upon the appearance of the finding. This may be difficult for a general practitioner, so referrals to pulmonologists are often scheduled. Best practices state the patient be followed in a multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinic, but again, most multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinics are found in the academic setting.

All this involves a lot of back-and-forth for the patient: First to see their primary care physician, then to see a pulmonologist or other health care provider for the counseling regarding risks and benefits of screening and the importance of smoking cessation, and then a visit to a radiologist as well as a visit to a smoking cessation clinic, then a return follow-up visit. Academic medical centers and NCI-approved cancer centers often have these procedures worked out, but many private or smaller practices do not. Yes, the local IT folks can modify an EMR, but in a small practice, there are other “more important” problems that take precedence.

Would coupling lung cancer screening with breast cancer scanning help? One study followed 874 women who attended mammographic screening and found that over 11% were at high risk for lung cancer. This would appear to be an ideal “teaching moment” to educate the importance of lung cancer screening to women. It could also cut down on some of the logistical issues associated with lung cancer screening, particularly if a health care provider and coordinator were immediately available for counseling and eligibility determination at the time of the mammography visit. The radiology clinic staff could schedule a scan and return visit while the patient was still in the mammography suite.

Of course, the logistical hassle is just one of many associated with lung cancer screening. The internal stigma the patient may experience about their smoking history, the unconscious bias on the part of many health professionals, the many other screening and prevention regulations providers are now required to follow, the institution’s reluctance to support a screening program, the rushed pace in many clinics: These all certainly contribute to the problem. However, we have overcome all of these issues when it comes to mammography, such as work flow, stigma, logistical issues, seamless incorporation of ordering scans and referrals to specialists in the EMR, etc. We can and must do the same for our patients at high risk for lung cancer, and routine scheduling of mammograms and low-dose CTs may help.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer saves lives. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with annual screening over 3 years with low-dose CT as compared with x-rays. The NELSON trial found a higher benefit: Men at high risk for lung cancer had a 26% reduced risk of dying from lung cancer and women had a 61% reduced risk over 10 years. However, the 2022 American Lung Association State of Lung Cancer report shows that less than 6% of eligible people get screened. Why is this?

There are many reasons, but I submit that at least one hurdle is related to the difficulties associated with ordering the low-dose CT in the electronic medical record (EMR) and following the results. The rules and regulations around lung cancer screening are complex. First, the ordering provider must be able to determine if the patient is eligible for screening and has insurance coverage – a complicated procedure, which is constantly in flux, and is based on age, smoking history, smoke-free interval, and type of insurance coverage. Most EMRs do not have a way of flagging high-risk individuals, and clinic coordinators (for those practices that have one) are often put in charge of determining eligibility.

Secondly, the health care provider must order the scan. Unlike mammography, people must have a prescreening visit with a physician or other health care provider – a visit which is poorly compensated, and often must be supported by the institution. Many EMRs also do not have a smooth mechanism to make sure all the “boxes have been checked” before the scan can be ordered. Is there a complete smoking history? Has the patient had their prescreening visit? Has the patient been counseled regarding tobacco use? Has eligibility for insurance payment been confirmed?

Coordinating follow-up is cumbersome. Abnormal findings are common and usually nonmalignant, but must be followed up, and the follow-up recommendations are complicated and are based upon the appearance of the finding. This may be difficult for a general practitioner, so referrals to pulmonologists are often scheduled. Best practices state the patient be followed in a multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinic, but again, most multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinics are found in the academic setting.

All this involves a lot of back-and-forth for the patient: First to see their primary care physician, then to see a pulmonologist or other health care provider for the counseling regarding risks and benefits of screening and the importance of smoking cessation, and then a visit to a radiologist as well as a visit to a smoking cessation clinic, then a return follow-up visit. Academic medical centers and NCI-approved cancer centers often have these procedures worked out, but many private or smaller practices do not. Yes, the local IT folks can modify an EMR, but in a small practice, there are other “more important” problems that take precedence.

Would coupling lung cancer screening with breast cancer scanning help? One study followed 874 women who attended mammographic screening and found that over 11% were at high risk for lung cancer. This would appear to be an ideal “teaching moment” to educate the importance of lung cancer screening to women. It could also cut down on some of the logistical issues associated with lung cancer screening, particularly if a health care provider and coordinator were immediately available for counseling and eligibility determination at the time of the mammography visit. The radiology clinic staff could schedule a scan and return visit while the patient was still in the mammography suite.

Of course, the logistical hassle is just one of many associated with lung cancer screening. The internal stigma the patient may experience about their smoking history, the unconscious bias on the part of many health professionals, the many other screening and prevention regulations providers are now required to follow, the institution’s reluctance to support a screening program, the rushed pace in many clinics: These all certainly contribute to the problem. However, we have overcome all of these issues when it comes to mammography, such as work flow, stigma, logistical issues, seamless incorporation of ordering scans and referrals to specialists in the EMR, etc. We can and must do the same for our patients at high risk for lung cancer, and routine scheduling of mammograms and low-dose CTs may help.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Screening high-risk populations for lung cancer saves lives. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with annual screening over 3 years with low-dose CT as compared with x-rays. The NELSON trial found a higher benefit: Men at high risk for lung cancer had a 26% reduced risk of dying from lung cancer and women had a 61% reduced risk over 10 years. However, the 2022 American Lung Association State of Lung Cancer report shows that less than 6% of eligible people get screened. Why is this?

There are many reasons, but I submit that at least one hurdle is related to the difficulties associated with ordering the low-dose CT in the electronic medical record (EMR) and following the results. The rules and regulations around lung cancer screening are complex. First, the ordering provider must be able to determine if the patient is eligible for screening and has insurance coverage – a complicated procedure, which is constantly in flux, and is based on age, smoking history, smoke-free interval, and type of insurance coverage. Most EMRs do not have a way of flagging high-risk individuals, and clinic coordinators (for those practices that have one) are often put in charge of determining eligibility.

Secondly, the health care provider must order the scan. Unlike mammography, people must have a prescreening visit with a physician or other health care provider – a visit which is poorly compensated, and often must be supported by the institution. Many EMRs also do not have a smooth mechanism to make sure all the “boxes have been checked” before the scan can be ordered. Is there a complete smoking history? Has the patient had their prescreening visit? Has the patient been counseled regarding tobacco use? Has eligibility for insurance payment been confirmed?

Coordinating follow-up is cumbersome. Abnormal findings are common and usually nonmalignant, but must be followed up, and the follow-up recommendations are complicated and are based upon the appearance of the finding. This may be difficult for a general practitioner, so referrals to pulmonologists are often scheduled. Best practices state the patient be followed in a multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinic, but again, most multidisciplinary pulmonary module clinics are found in the academic setting.

All this involves a lot of back-and-forth for the patient: First to see their primary care physician, then to see a pulmonologist or other health care provider for the counseling regarding risks and benefits of screening and the importance of smoking cessation, and then a visit to a radiologist as well as a visit to a smoking cessation clinic, then a return follow-up visit. Academic medical centers and NCI-approved cancer centers often have these procedures worked out, but many private or smaller practices do not. Yes, the local IT folks can modify an EMR, but in a small practice, there are other “more important” problems that take precedence.

Would coupling lung cancer screening with breast cancer scanning help? One study followed 874 women who attended mammographic screening and found that over 11% were at high risk for lung cancer. This would appear to be an ideal “teaching moment” to educate the importance of lung cancer screening to women. It could also cut down on some of the logistical issues associated with lung cancer screening, particularly if a health care provider and coordinator were immediately available for counseling and eligibility determination at the time of the mammography visit. The radiology clinic staff could schedule a scan and return visit while the patient was still in the mammography suite.

Of course, the logistical hassle is just one of many associated with lung cancer screening. The internal stigma the patient may experience about their smoking history, the unconscious bias on the part of many health professionals, the many other screening and prevention regulations providers are now required to follow, the institution’s reluctance to support a screening program, the rushed pace in many clinics: These all certainly contribute to the problem. However, we have overcome all of these issues when it comes to mammography, such as work flow, stigma, logistical issues, seamless incorporation of ordering scans and referrals to specialists in the EMR, etc. We can and must do the same for our patients at high risk for lung cancer, and routine scheduling of mammograms and low-dose CTs may help.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Ivy Elkins, cofounder of EGFR Resisters, a patient, survivor, and caregiver advocacy group, contributed to this article.

Hyperhidrosis has a significant impact on a person’s physical, psychological, and social aspects of life. The lack of treatment options and associated stigma limits access to care and treatment options.

Primary hyperhidrosis does not have an underlying cause; is symmetrical; can worsen with anxiety, fear, or stress; and may have a familial component. Palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis are the most common types of hyperhidrosis. The incidence of craniofacial hyperhidrosis has not been clearly defined but it is most commonly reported on the forehead, where the concentration of eccrine sweat glands is highest.

Treatment options for craniofacial hyperhidrosis include topical aluminum chloride, which blocks the eccrine sweat duct or causes eccrine cell atrophy. Although this option is a common treatment for palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis, use on the face has not been thoroughly studied, and may also cause skin irritation.

Topical and oral glycopyrrolate can be effective for all types of hyperhidrosis, but must be used daily and can have systemic side effects, with variable efficacy and longevity. Oral oxybutynin, beta-blockers, clonidine, and benzodiazepines have also been used with some limited studies available in patients with generalized hyperhidrosis.

Surgical treatments such as videothoracoscopy sympathectomy can be used in severe or recalcitrant cases of hyperhidrosis with good efficacy. However, surgical complications and inherent surgical risks limit these treatment options unless other modalities are exhausted.

OnabotulinumtoxinA is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis, but is used off label for palmar, plantar, and craniofacial hyperhidrosis with great results and few side effects. Clinical pearls and guidelines for the use of botulinum toxin A in craniofacial hyperhidrosis were outlined by Wolosker and colleagues in a review article. As with any injection of neurotoxin, knowledge of the facial anatomy is critical to avoiding muscle paralysis.

For patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis in my practice, I treat the scalp, nose, cheeks, upper lip, and chin with small blebs of botulinum toxin injected in the superficial dermis, double diluted. Treatment effects usually last 3 months, similar to cosmetic uses. Wolosker uses a dilution of 100 U botulinum toxin in 1.0 mL saline, which I find slightly more difficult to control and more likely to have loss of toxin.

In my experience, I have found the following dosing to be most effective with the least side effects for the following (dosages vary and can be titrated up to response):

• Upper lip: 6-10 U.
• Chin: 6-10 U.
• Forehead: 15-30 U. (Avoid 1 cm above the brow unless risks of brow drop are reviewed and acceptable to the patient. In my experience patients would rather have a lower brow than obstructive sweating in their brow that can irritate the eyes, blur vision, and smudge skincare and makeup.)
• Nose: 10 U
• Cheeks: 10 U per side (staying very superficial with injections).
• Scalp: 30-50 U (using serial injections 1-2 cm apart in the area affected by hyperhidrosis).

Side effects include temporary erythema, bruising, and edema, as well as muscle paralysis and asymmetry if proper injection technique is not used, the dose is not diluted properly, or the injection is too deep.

There are scattered case studies of symbiotic techniques to help the penetration of botulinum toxin when treating craniofacial hyperhidrosis, including microneedling, radiofrequency, long-pulsed diode laser, and ultrasound. But the safety and efficacy of these procedures have not been properly evaluated.

In all of my patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis treated with botulinum toxin, quality of life is significantly improved with almost no complications. Botulinum toxin is a safe, relatively quick in-office procedure to treat craniofacial hyperhidrosis that can be used to help patients – particularly those who experience anxiety or have social and occupational impairment related to their disease.

This procedure is cosmetic in nature, and therefore, not covered by insurance.

Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Write to her at [email protected]. She had no relevant disclosures.

References

Parashar K et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 Mar;24(2):187-98.

Doolittle J et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Dec;308(10):743-9.

Wolosker N et al. J Vasc Bras. 2020 Nov 16;19:e20190152.

Garcia-Souto F et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021 Jan;34(1):e14658.

Ebrahim H et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;15(9):40-4.

Campanati A et al. Toxins (Basel). 2022 May 27;14(6):3727.

Hyperhidrosis has a significant impact on a person’s physical, psychological, and social aspects of life. The lack of treatment options and associated stigma limits access to care and treatment options.

Primary hyperhidrosis does not have an underlying cause; is symmetrical; can worsen with anxiety, fear, or stress; and may have a familial component. Palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis are the most common types of hyperhidrosis. The incidence of craniofacial hyperhidrosis has not been clearly defined but it is most commonly reported on the forehead, where the concentration of eccrine sweat glands is highest.

Treatment options for craniofacial hyperhidrosis include topical aluminum chloride, which blocks the eccrine sweat duct or causes eccrine cell atrophy. Although this option is a common treatment for palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis, use on the face has not been thoroughly studied, and may also cause skin irritation.

Topical and oral glycopyrrolate can be effective for all types of hyperhidrosis, but must be used daily and can have systemic side effects, with variable efficacy and longevity. Oral oxybutynin, beta-blockers, clonidine, and benzodiazepines have also been used with some limited studies available in patients with generalized hyperhidrosis.

Surgical treatments such as videothoracoscopy sympathectomy can be used in severe or recalcitrant cases of hyperhidrosis with good efficacy. However, surgical complications and inherent surgical risks limit these treatment options unless other modalities are exhausted.

OnabotulinumtoxinA is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis, but is used off label for palmar, plantar, and craniofacial hyperhidrosis with great results and few side effects. Clinical pearls and guidelines for the use of botulinum toxin A in craniofacial hyperhidrosis were outlined by Wolosker and colleagues in a review article. As with any injection of neurotoxin, knowledge of the facial anatomy is critical to avoiding muscle paralysis.

For patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis in my practice, I treat the scalp, nose, cheeks, upper lip, and chin with small blebs of botulinum toxin injected in the superficial dermis, double diluted. Treatment effects usually last 3 months, similar to cosmetic uses. Wolosker uses a dilution of 100 U botulinum toxin in 1.0 mL saline, which I find slightly more difficult to control and more likely to have loss of toxin.

In my experience, I have found the following dosing to be most effective with the least side effects for the following (dosages vary and can be titrated up to response):

• Upper lip: 6-10 U.
• Chin: 6-10 U.
• Forehead: 15-30 U. (Avoid 1 cm above the brow unless risks of brow drop are reviewed and acceptable to the patient. In my experience patients would rather have a lower brow than obstructive sweating in their brow that can irritate the eyes, blur vision, and smudge skincare and makeup.)
• Nose: 10 U
• Cheeks: 10 U per side (staying very superficial with injections).
• Scalp: 30-50 U (using serial injections 1-2 cm apart in the area affected by hyperhidrosis).

Side effects include temporary erythema, bruising, and edema, as well as muscle paralysis and asymmetry if proper injection technique is not used, the dose is not diluted properly, or the injection is too deep.

There are scattered case studies of symbiotic techniques to help the penetration of botulinum toxin when treating craniofacial hyperhidrosis, including microneedling, radiofrequency, long-pulsed diode laser, and ultrasound. But the safety and efficacy of these procedures have not been properly evaluated.

In all of my patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis treated with botulinum toxin, quality of life is significantly improved with almost no complications. Botulinum toxin is a safe, relatively quick in-office procedure to treat craniofacial hyperhidrosis that can be used to help patients – particularly those who experience anxiety or have social and occupational impairment related to their disease.

This procedure is cosmetic in nature, and therefore, not covered by insurance.

Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Write to her at [email protected]. She had no relevant disclosures.

References

Parashar K et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 Mar;24(2):187-98.

Doolittle J et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Dec;308(10):743-9.

Wolosker N et al. J Vasc Bras. 2020 Nov 16;19:e20190152.

Garcia-Souto F et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021 Jan;34(1):e14658.

Ebrahim H et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;15(9):40-4.

Campanati A et al. Toxins (Basel). 2022 May 27;14(6):3727.

Hyperhidrosis has a significant impact on a person’s physical, psychological, and social aspects of life. The lack of treatment options and associated stigma limits access to care and treatment options.

Primary hyperhidrosis does not have an underlying cause; is symmetrical; can worsen with anxiety, fear, or stress; and may have a familial component. Palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis are the most common types of hyperhidrosis. The incidence of craniofacial hyperhidrosis has not been clearly defined but it is most commonly reported on the forehead, where the concentration of eccrine sweat glands is highest.

Treatment options for craniofacial hyperhidrosis include topical aluminum chloride, which blocks the eccrine sweat duct or causes eccrine cell atrophy. Although this option is a common treatment for palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis, use on the face has not been thoroughly studied, and may also cause skin irritation.

Topical and oral glycopyrrolate can be effective for all types of hyperhidrosis, but must be used daily and can have systemic side effects, with variable efficacy and longevity. Oral oxybutynin, beta-blockers, clonidine, and benzodiazepines have also been used with some limited studies available in patients with generalized hyperhidrosis.

Surgical treatments such as videothoracoscopy sympathectomy can be used in severe or recalcitrant cases of hyperhidrosis with good efficacy. However, surgical complications and inherent surgical risks limit these treatment options unless other modalities are exhausted.

OnabotulinumtoxinA is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis, but is used off label for palmar, plantar, and craniofacial hyperhidrosis with great results and few side effects. Clinical pearls and guidelines for the use of botulinum toxin A in craniofacial hyperhidrosis were outlined by Wolosker and colleagues in a review article. As with any injection of neurotoxin, knowledge of the facial anatomy is critical to avoiding muscle paralysis.

For patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis in my practice, I treat the scalp, nose, cheeks, upper lip, and chin with small blebs of botulinum toxin injected in the superficial dermis, double diluted. Treatment effects usually last 3 months, similar to cosmetic uses. Wolosker uses a dilution of 100 U botulinum toxin in 1.0 mL saline, which I find slightly more difficult to control and more likely to have loss of toxin.

In my experience, I have found the following dosing to be most effective with the least side effects for the following (dosages vary and can be titrated up to response):

• Upper lip: 6-10 U.
• Chin: 6-10 U.
• Forehead: 15-30 U. (Avoid 1 cm above the brow unless risks of brow drop are reviewed and acceptable to the patient. In my experience patients would rather have a lower brow than obstructive sweating in their brow that can irritate the eyes, blur vision, and smudge skincare and makeup.)
• Nose: 10 U
• Cheeks: 10 U per side (staying very superficial with injections).
• Scalp: 30-50 U (using serial injections 1-2 cm apart in the area affected by hyperhidrosis).

Side effects include temporary erythema, bruising, and edema, as well as muscle paralysis and asymmetry if proper injection technique is not used, the dose is not diluted properly, or the injection is too deep.

There are scattered case studies of symbiotic techniques to help the penetration of botulinum toxin when treating craniofacial hyperhidrosis, including microneedling, radiofrequency, long-pulsed diode laser, and ultrasound. But the safety and efficacy of these procedures have not been properly evaluated.

In all of my patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis treated with botulinum toxin, quality of life is significantly improved with almost no complications. Botulinum toxin is a safe, relatively quick in-office procedure to treat craniofacial hyperhidrosis that can be used to help patients – particularly those who experience anxiety or have social and occupational impairment related to their disease.

This procedure is cosmetic in nature, and therefore, not covered by insurance.

Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Write to her at [email protected]. She had no relevant disclosures.

References

Parashar K et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 Mar;24(2):187-98.

Doolittle J et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Dec;308(10):743-9.

Wolosker N et al. J Vasc Bras. 2020 Nov 16;19:e20190152.

Garcia-Souto F et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021 Jan;34(1):e14658.

Ebrahim H et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;15(9):40-4.

Campanati A et al. Toxins (Basel). 2022 May 27;14(6):3727.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released results of the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, their once-a-decade survey of youth mental health and risk-taking behaviors. The headlines aren’t good: Self-reported rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts in adolescents have increased substantially from 2011 to 2021. This echoes epidemiologic data showing increasing rates of anxiety and depression over the last decade in 12- to 24-year-olds, but not in older age cohorts.

This trend started well before COVID, coinciding with the explosive growth in use of smartphones, apps, and social media platforms. Facebook launched in 2004, the iPhone in 2007, Instagram in 2010, and TikTok in 2016. A 2018 Pew Research survey of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 97% of them used at least one social media platform and 45% described themselves as online “almost constantly.” Social media does have great potential benefits for adolescents.

We all experienced how it supported relationships during COVID. It can provide supportive networks for teenagers isolated by exclusion, illness, or disability. It can support exploration of esoteric interests, expression of identity, entertainment, and relaxation. But certain children, as was true before social media, seem vulnerable to the bullying, loneliness, isolation, and disengagement that social media may exacerbate.

Several studies have shown an association between high daily screen time and adolescent anxiety and depression. These findings have not been consistently duplicated, and those that were could not establish causality. There appears to be a strong link between certain illnesses (ADHD, depression, anorexia nervosa) and excessive screen use, which can in turn worsen symptoms. But it is hard to know which came first or how they are related.

Now, a very large long-term observational study has suggested that there may be critical windows in adolescence (11-13 years in girls and 14-16 in boys and again at 19 years for both) during which time excessive screen time can put that child’s developing mental health at risk. This is nuanced and interesting progress, but you don’t have to wait another decade to offer the families in your practice some common sense guidance when they are asking how to balance their children’s needs to be independent and socially connected (and the fact that smartphones and social media are pervasive) with the risks of overuse. Equipped with these guiding principles, parents can set individualized, flexible ground rules, and adjust them as their children grow into young adults.
 

First: Know your child

Parents are, of course, the experts on their own child – their talents, interests, challenges, vulnerabilities, and developmental progress. Children with poor impulse control (including those with ADHD) are going to have greater difficulty turning away from highly addictive activities on their devices. Children who are anxious and shy may be prone to avoiding the stress of real-life situations, preferring virtual ones. Children with a history of depression may be vulnerable to relapse if their sleep and exercise routines are disrupted by excessive use. And children with eating disorders are especially vulnerable to the superficial social comparisons and “likes” that Instagram offers. Children with these vulnerabilities will benefit if their parents are aware of and can talk about these vulnerabilities, ideally with their child. They should be prepared to work with their teens to develop strategies that can help them learn how to manage their social media usage. These might include stopping screen use after a certain hour, leaving devices outside of bedrooms at night, and setting up apps that monitor and alert them about excessive use. They might use resources such as the AAP’s Family Media Plan (Media and Children [aap.org]), but simply taking the time to have regular, open, honest conversations about what is known and unknown about the potential risks of social media use is very protective.

Second: Use adolescent development as your guide

For those children who do not have a known vulnerability to overuse, consider the following areas that are essential to healthy development in adolescence as guideposts to help parents in setting reasonable ground rules: building independence, cultivating healthy social relationships, learning about their identity, managing their strong emotions, and developing the skills of self-care. If screen time supports these developmental areas, then it’s probably healthy. If it interferes with them, then not. And remember, parents should routinely discuss these principles with their children as well.

Independence

Key questions. Does their use of a device enable them to function more independently – that is, to arrange for rides, manage their schedules, homework, shifts, and so forth – on their own? Could it be done with a “dumb” device (text/call only)?

Social relationships

One-way viewing (Instagram, Facebook) with superficial acquaintances may promote isolation, anxiety, and depression, does not facilitate deepened relationships, and may be using up time that they could be investing in genuine social connections. But if they are using their devices to stay connected to good friends who live far away or just have different schedules, they can promote genuine, satisfying, bilateral social connections.

Key questions. Are they engaged in two-way communication with their devices? Are they staying connected to friends with whom they have a genuine, substantial relationship?
 

Investigating and experimenting with interests (identity)

Teenagers are supposed to be learning in deep and nuanced ways about their own interests and abilities during these years. This requires a lot of time invested in exploration and experimentation and a considerable amount of failure. Any activity that consumes a lot of their time without deepening meaningful knowledge of their interests and abilities (that is, activity that is only an escape or distraction) will interfere with their discovering their authentic identity.

Key questions. Is their use of devices facilitating this genuine exploration (setting up internships, practicing programming, or exploring interests that must be virtual)? Or is their device use just consuming precious time they could be using to genuinely explore potential interests?
 

Managing anxiety or distress

Exploring their identity and building social connections will involve a lot of stress, failure, disappointment, and even heartbreak. Learning to manage these uncomfortable feelings is an important part of adolescence. Distraction with a diverting entertainment can be one of several strategies for managing stress and distress. But if it becomes the only strategy, it can keep teens from getting “back in the game” and experiencing the fun, success, meaning, and joy that are also a big part of this exploration.

Key questions. Do they turn to their devices first when sad or stressed? Are they also able to use other strategies, such as talking with friends/family, exercising, or engaging in a meaningful pursuit to help them manage stress? Do they feel better after a little time spent on their device, or as if they will only feel good if they can stay on the device?
 

Self-care

Getting adequate, restful sleep (8-10 hours/night), finding regular time for exercise, cultivating healthy eating habits, and discovering what healthy strategies help them to unwind or relax is critical to a teenager’s healthiest development, and to healthy adult life. Some screens may help with motivating and tracking exercise, but screens in the bedroom interfere with going to bed, and with falling and staying asleep. Most teenagers are very busy and managing a lot of (normal) stress; the senseless fun or relaxation that are part of video games or surfing the Web are quick, practical, and effective ways to unwind. Don’t discourage your teenager from enjoying them. Instead, focus on also helping them to find other healthy ways to relax: hot baths, exercise, time with pets, crafts, reading, and listening to music are just a few examples. As they are building their identity, they should also be discovering how they best slow down and calm down.

Key questions. How many hours of sleep do they usually get on a school night? Is their phone (or other screen) in their bedroom during sleep? How do they relax? Do they have several strategies that do not require screens? Do they exercise regularly (3-5 times weekly)? Do they complain that they do not have enough time for exercise?
 

Third: Be mindful of what you model

Many of these principles can apply to our own use of smartphones, computers, and so on. Remind parents that their teenager will ultimately consider and follow their example much more than their commands. They should be prepared to talk about how they are thinking about the risks and benefits of social media use, how they are developing rules and expectations, and why they decided on them. These conversations model thoughtful and flexible decision-making.

It is critical that parents acknowledge that there are wonderful benefits to technology, including senseless fun. Then, it is easier to discuss how escaping into screen use can be hard to resist, and why it is important to practice resisting some temptations. Parents should find ways to follow the same rules they set for their teenager, or making them “family rules.” It’s important for our teenagers to learn about how to set these limits, as eventually they will be setting their own!
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released results of the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, their once-a-decade survey of youth mental health and risk-taking behaviors. The headlines aren’t good: Self-reported rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts in adolescents have increased substantially from 2011 to 2021. This echoes epidemiologic data showing increasing rates of anxiety and depression over the last decade in 12- to 24-year-olds, but not in older age cohorts.

This trend started well before COVID, coinciding with the explosive growth in use of smartphones, apps, and social media platforms. Facebook launched in 2004, the iPhone in 2007, Instagram in 2010, and TikTok in 2016. A 2018 Pew Research survey of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 97% of them used at least one social media platform and 45% described themselves as online “almost constantly.” Social media does have great potential benefits for adolescents.

We all experienced how it supported relationships during COVID. It can provide supportive networks for teenagers isolated by exclusion, illness, or disability. It can support exploration of esoteric interests, expression of identity, entertainment, and relaxation. But certain children, as was true before social media, seem vulnerable to the bullying, loneliness, isolation, and disengagement that social media may exacerbate.

Several studies have shown an association between high daily screen time and adolescent anxiety and depression. These findings have not been consistently duplicated, and those that were could not establish causality. There appears to be a strong link between certain illnesses (ADHD, depression, anorexia nervosa) and excessive screen use, which can in turn worsen symptoms. But it is hard to know which came first or how they are related.

Now, a very large long-term observational study has suggested that there may be critical windows in adolescence (11-13 years in girls and 14-16 in boys and again at 19 years for both) during which time excessive screen time can put that child’s developing mental health at risk. This is nuanced and interesting progress, but you don’t have to wait another decade to offer the families in your practice some common sense guidance when they are asking how to balance their children’s needs to be independent and socially connected (and the fact that smartphones and social media are pervasive) with the risks of overuse. Equipped with these guiding principles, parents can set individualized, flexible ground rules, and adjust them as their children grow into young adults.
 

First: Know your child

Parents are, of course, the experts on their own child – their talents, interests, challenges, vulnerabilities, and developmental progress. Children with poor impulse control (including those with ADHD) are going to have greater difficulty turning away from highly addictive activities on their devices. Children who are anxious and shy may be prone to avoiding the stress of real-life situations, preferring virtual ones. Children with a history of depression may be vulnerable to relapse if their sleep and exercise routines are disrupted by excessive use. And children with eating disorders are especially vulnerable to the superficial social comparisons and “likes” that Instagram offers. Children with these vulnerabilities will benefit if their parents are aware of and can talk about these vulnerabilities, ideally with their child. They should be prepared to work with their teens to develop strategies that can help them learn how to manage their social media usage. These might include stopping screen use after a certain hour, leaving devices outside of bedrooms at night, and setting up apps that monitor and alert them about excessive use. They might use resources such as the AAP’s Family Media Plan (Media and Children [aap.org]), but simply taking the time to have regular, open, honest conversations about what is known and unknown about the potential risks of social media use is very protective.

Second: Use adolescent development as your guide

For those children who do not have a known vulnerability to overuse, consider the following areas that are essential to healthy development in adolescence as guideposts to help parents in setting reasonable ground rules: building independence, cultivating healthy social relationships, learning about their identity, managing their strong emotions, and developing the skills of self-care. If screen time supports these developmental areas, then it’s probably healthy. If it interferes with them, then not. And remember, parents should routinely discuss these principles with their children as well.

Independence

Key questions. Does their use of a device enable them to function more independently – that is, to arrange for rides, manage their schedules, homework, shifts, and so forth – on their own? Could it be done with a “dumb” device (text/call only)?

Social relationships

One-way viewing (Instagram, Facebook) with superficial acquaintances may promote isolation, anxiety, and depression, does not facilitate deepened relationships, and may be using up time that they could be investing in genuine social connections. But if they are using their devices to stay connected to good friends who live far away or just have different schedules, they can promote genuine, satisfying, bilateral social connections.

Key questions. Are they engaged in two-way communication with their devices? Are they staying connected to friends with whom they have a genuine, substantial relationship?
 

Investigating and experimenting with interests (identity)

Teenagers are supposed to be learning in deep and nuanced ways about their own interests and abilities during these years. This requires a lot of time invested in exploration and experimentation and a considerable amount of failure. Any activity that consumes a lot of their time without deepening meaningful knowledge of their interests and abilities (that is, activity that is only an escape or distraction) will interfere with their discovering their authentic identity.

Key questions. Is their use of devices facilitating this genuine exploration (setting up internships, practicing programming, or exploring interests that must be virtual)? Or is their device use just consuming precious time they could be using to genuinely explore potential interests?
 

Managing anxiety or distress

Exploring their identity and building social connections will involve a lot of stress, failure, disappointment, and even heartbreak. Learning to manage these uncomfortable feelings is an important part of adolescence. Distraction with a diverting entertainment can be one of several strategies for managing stress and distress. But if it becomes the only strategy, it can keep teens from getting “back in the game” and experiencing the fun, success, meaning, and joy that are also a big part of this exploration.

Key questions. Do they turn to their devices first when sad or stressed? Are they also able to use other strategies, such as talking with friends/family, exercising, or engaging in a meaningful pursuit to help them manage stress? Do they feel better after a little time spent on their device, or as if they will only feel good if they can stay on the device?
 

Self-care

Getting adequate, restful sleep (8-10 hours/night), finding regular time for exercise, cultivating healthy eating habits, and discovering what healthy strategies help them to unwind or relax is critical to a teenager’s healthiest development, and to healthy adult life. Some screens may help with motivating and tracking exercise, but screens in the bedroom interfere with going to bed, and with falling and staying asleep. Most teenagers are very busy and managing a lot of (normal) stress; the senseless fun or relaxation that are part of video games or surfing the Web are quick, practical, and effective ways to unwind. Don’t discourage your teenager from enjoying them. Instead, focus on also helping them to find other healthy ways to relax: hot baths, exercise, time with pets, crafts, reading, and listening to music are just a few examples. As they are building their identity, they should also be discovering how they best slow down and calm down.

Key questions. How many hours of sleep do they usually get on a school night? Is their phone (or other screen) in their bedroom during sleep? How do they relax? Do they have several strategies that do not require screens? Do they exercise regularly (3-5 times weekly)? Do they complain that they do not have enough time for exercise?
 

Third: Be mindful of what you model

Many of these principles can apply to our own use of smartphones, computers, and so on. Remind parents that their teenager will ultimately consider and follow their example much more than their commands. They should be prepared to talk about how they are thinking about the risks and benefits of social media use, how they are developing rules and expectations, and why they decided on them. These conversations model thoughtful and flexible decision-making.

It is critical that parents acknowledge that there are wonderful benefits to technology, including senseless fun. Then, it is easier to discuss how escaping into screen use can be hard to resist, and why it is important to practice resisting some temptations. Parents should find ways to follow the same rules they set for their teenager, or making them “family rules.” It’s important for our teenagers to learn about how to set these limits, as eventually they will be setting their own!
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released results of the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, their once-a-decade survey of youth mental health and risk-taking behaviors. The headlines aren’t good: Self-reported rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts in adolescents have increased substantially from 2011 to 2021. This echoes epidemiologic data showing increasing rates of anxiety and depression over the last decade in 12- to 24-year-olds, but not in older age cohorts.

This trend started well before COVID, coinciding with the explosive growth in use of smartphones, apps, and social media platforms. Facebook launched in 2004, the iPhone in 2007, Instagram in 2010, and TikTok in 2016. A 2018 Pew Research survey of 13- to 17-year-olds found that 97% of them used at least one social media platform and 45% described themselves as online “almost constantly.” Social media does have great potential benefits for adolescents.

We all experienced how it supported relationships during COVID. It can provide supportive networks for teenagers isolated by exclusion, illness, or disability. It can support exploration of esoteric interests, expression of identity, entertainment, and relaxation. But certain children, as was true before social media, seem vulnerable to the bullying, loneliness, isolation, and disengagement that social media may exacerbate.

Several studies have shown an association between high daily screen time and adolescent anxiety and depression. These findings have not been consistently duplicated, and those that were could not establish causality. There appears to be a strong link between certain illnesses (ADHD, depression, anorexia nervosa) and excessive screen use, which can in turn worsen symptoms. But it is hard to know which came first or how they are related.

Now, a very large long-term observational study has suggested that there may be critical windows in adolescence (11-13 years in girls and 14-16 in boys and again at 19 years for both) during which time excessive screen time can put that child’s developing mental health at risk. This is nuanced and interesting progress, but you don’t have to wait another decade to offer the families in your practice some common sense guidance when they are asking how to balance their children’s needs to be independent and socially connected (and the fact that smartphones and social media are pervasive) with the risks of overuse. Equipped with these guiding principles, parents can set individualized, flexible ground rules, and adjust them as their children grow into young adults.
 

First: Know your child

Parents are, of course, the experts on their own child – their talents, interests, challenges, vulnerabilities, and developmental progress. Children with poor impulse control (including those with ADHD) are going to have greater difficulty turning away from highly addictive activities on their devices. Children who are anxious and shy may be prone to avoiding the stress of real-life situations, preferring virtual ones. Children with a history of depression may be vulnerable to relapse if their sleep and exercise routines are disrupted by excessive use. And children with eating disorders are especially vulnerable to the superficial social comparisons and “likes” that Instagram offers. Children with these vulnerabilities will benefit if their parents are aware of and can talk about these vulnerabilities, ideally with their child. They should be prepared to work with their teens to develop strategies that can help them learn how to manage their social media usage. These might include stopping screen use after a certain hour, leaving devices outside of bedrooms at night, and setting up apps that monitor and alert them about excessive use. They might use resources such as the AAP’s Family Media Plan (Media and Children [aap.org]), but simply taking the time to have regular, open, honest conversations about what is known and unknown about the potential risks of social media use is very protective.

Second: Use adolescent development as your guide

For those children who do not have a known vulnerability to overuse, consider the following areas that are essential to healthy development in adolescence as guideposts to help parents in setting reasonable ground rules: building independence, cultivating healthy social relationships, learning about their identity, managing their strong emotions, and developing the skills of self-care. If screen time supports these developmental areas, then it’s probably healthy. If it interferes with them, then not. And remember, parents should routinely discuss these principles with their children as well.

Independence

Key questions. Does their use of a device enable them to function more independently – that is, to arrange for rides, manage their schedules, homework, shifts, and so forth – on their own? Could it be done with a “dumb” device (text/call only)?

Social relationships

One-way viewing (Instagram, Facebook) with superficial acquaintances may promote isolation, anxiety, and depression, does not facilitate deepened relationships, and may be using up time that they could be investing in genuine social connections. But if they are using their devices to stay connected to good friends who live far away or just have different schedules, they can promote genuine, satisfying, bilateral social connections.

Key questions. Are they engaged in two-way communication with their devices? Are they staying connected to friends with whom they have a genuine, substantial relationship?
 

Investigating and experimenting with interests (identity)

Teenagers are supposed to be learning in deep and nuanced ways about their own interests and abilities during these years. This requires a lot of time invested in exploration and experimentation and a considerable amount of failure. Any activity that consumes a lot of their time without deepening meaningful knowledge of their interests and abilities (that is, activity that is only an escape or distraction) will interfere with their discovering their authentic identity.

Key questions. Is their use of devices facilitating this genuine exploration (setting up internships, practicing programming, or exploring interests that must be virtual)? Or is their device use just consuming precious time they could be using to genuinely explore potential interests?
 

Managing anxiety or distress

Exploring their identity and building social connections will involve a lot of stress, failure, disappointment, and even heartbreak. Learning to manage these uncomfortable feelings is an important part of adolescence. Distraction with a diverting entertainment can be one of several strategies for managing stress and distress. But if it becomes the only strategy, it can keep teens from getting “back in the game” and experiencing the fun, success, meaning, and joy that are also a big part of this exploration.

Key questions. Do they turn to their devices first when sad or stressed? Are they also able to use other strategies, such as talking with friends/family, exercising, or engaging in a meaningful pursuit to help them manage stress? Do they feel better after a little time spent on their device, or as if they will only feel good if they can stay on the device?
 

Self-care

Getting adequate, restful sleep (8-10 hours/night), finding regular time for exercise, cultivating healthy eating habits, and discovering what healthy strategies help them to unwind or relax is critical to a teenager’s healthiest development, and to healthy adult life. Some screens may help with motivating and tracking exercise, but screens in the bedroom interfere with going to bed, and with falling and staying asleep. Most teenagers are very busy and managing a lot of (normal) stress; the senseless fun or relaxation that are part of video games or surfing the Web are quick, practical, and effective ways to unwind. Don’t discourage your teenager from enjoying them. Instead, focus on also helping them to find other healthy ways to relax: hot baths, exercise, time with pets, crafts, reading, and listening to music are just a few examples. As they are building their identity, they should also be discovering how they best slow down and calm down.

Key questions. How many hours of sleep do they usually get on a school night? Is their phone (or other screen) in their bedroom during sleep? How do they relax? Do they have several strategies that do not require screens? Do they exercise regularly (3-5 times weekly)? Do they complain that they do not have enough time for exercise?
 

Third: Be mindful of what you model

Many of these principles can apply to our own use of smartphones, computers, and so on. Remind parents that their teenager will ultimately consider and follow their example much more than their commands. They should be prepared to talk about how they are thinking about the risks and benefits of social media use, how they are developing rules and expectations, and why they decided on them. These conversations model thoughtful and flexible decision-making.

It is critical that parents acknowledge that there are wonderful benefits to technology, including senseless fun. Then, it is easier to discuss how escaping into screen use can be hard to resist, and why it is important to practice resisting some temptations. Parents should find ways to follow the same rules they set for their teenager, or making them “family rules.” It’s important for our teenagers to learn about how to set these limits, as eventually they will be setting their own!
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.

Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.

It is important to remember when prescribing Ozempic that it has not received FDA approval to serve as a weight loss medication but rather as a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Doctors use many medications off label, but this must be done with the whole picture in mind.

Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.

Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.

As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.

Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.

Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.

As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.

Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.

There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.

Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.

*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at [email protected].

Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.

Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.

It is important to remember when prescribing Ozempic that it has not received FDA approval to serve as a weight loss medication but rather as a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Doctors use many medications off label, but this must be done with the whole picture in mind.

Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.

Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.

As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.

Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.

Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.

As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.

Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.

There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.

Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.

*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at [email protected].

Social media and mainstream media websites are full of stories on the new wonder weight loss drug: Ozempic. Even Hollywood stars are talking about it.

Recently, the zealous prescribing of this diabetes medication fueled a 6-month shortage making it difficult for anyone to get it. Part of the problem stems from digital access to these medications where a patient can get a prescription online or via a telemedicine platform. Additionally, certain weight loss programs contributed to promoting the weight loss benefits.

It is important to remember when prescribing Ozempic that it has not received FDA approval to serve as a weight loss medication but rather as a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Doctors use many medications off label, but this must be done with the whole picture in mind.

Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, with the generic name semaglutide, that lowers hemoglobin A1c in patients with diabetes and lowers the risk of cardiovascular events. Semaglutide is also sold as Wegovy, which is indicated for weight loss. Both Ozempic and Wegovy are sold in multiple doses, but the target dose for Wegovy is higher.

Weight loss with Wegovy is, on average, higher than that seen with Ozempic. However, it is often more difficult to get Wegovy covered by health insurance companies.

As doctors, we must be stewards of the medications we are prescribing. Clearly, the Internet should not be driving our prescribing habits. Prescribing Ozempic for weight loss can make it more difficult for patients with diabetes to receive it, and we should consider other options until it is more available and/or receives FDA approval for treating obesity.

Most of us have seen our patients with diabetes having difficulty getting a prescription for Ozempic filled, either because it is on back-order or because of a lack of coverage. Insurance companies have no incentive to lower the cost when it is in such high demand at its current rate. For these patients, lowering their A1c can be life-saving and prevent complications of diabetes, such as kidney failure and heart disease. In our current environment, we should reserve prescribing Ozempic for our patients with diabetes who need it more. Wegovy is available and can be prescribed for patients wishing to lose weight.

Many patients are looking for a magic cure. Neither medication is that. Patients need to start with making lifestyle changes first. In primary care, advising on and helping patients implement those are often our most difficult tasks. However, no medication is going to work unless the patient makes adjustments to their diet and amount and type of movement they are doing. In patients who have a hard time changing their diet, lowering carbohydrate intake may be a good first step. Exercising, or being more active if a patient is unable to formally exercise, is an important therapy.

As we all know, metformin is the usual preferred method for the treatment of type 2 diabetes unless contraindicated in a given patient. There are many oral diabetes medications available, and which of these and how these are prescribed need to be tailored to the individual patient. Ozempic can be used when a patient is failing on metformin, or other oral meds, or if they would rather do a weekly injection rather than remembering to take daily pills, for example.

Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, more than 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Additionally, millions of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are now considered obese, and the medical complications for these individuals ares yet to be seen. Plus, many of us are seeing higher frequencies of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic medical conditions in adolescents in our daily practices.

Our war against obesity is a fight for future lives and having more tools available is definitely a help. Like with patients with diabetes, all treatment regimens should start off with lifestyle modifications. Fad diets rarely result in long-term weight loss.

There are several medications now available to help with weight loss, Wegovy being just one of them. Patients often come to us with their own personal preferences, and it is our job to guide them on the best course to take. Some people may prefer a weekly injection. There are oral medications available, such as Contrave and Phentermine, and the best one should be decided upon by the patient and doctor after a discussion of the risks.

Let’s stop prescribing Ozempic for weight loss because nonphysicians say we should. Leave it for our patients with diabetes, those whose lives may depend on taking it. If we didn’t have other medications available, it would be a very different story. But, we do, and we need to resist the pressure others place on us and do the right thing for all of our patients.

*This article was updated on 3/23/2023.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She has no conflicts related to this piece. You can contact her at [email protected].

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

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

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

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

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

That mom is not alone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That mom is not alone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That mom is not alone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APA’s guideline

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

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

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

AAP’s clinical report

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

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

USPSTF’s recommendation

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

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

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

Takeaway message

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

APA’s guideline

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

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

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

AAP’s clinical report

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

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

USPSTF’s recommendation

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

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

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

Takeaway message

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

APA’s guideline

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

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

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

AAP’s clinical report

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

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

USPSTF’s recommendation

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

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

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

Takeaway message

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSRO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSRO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSRO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the concern about thyroid cancer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the concern about thyroid cancer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the concern about thyroid cancer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages

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

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

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

Establishing an advanced endoscopy practice can appear challenging and overwhelming. It is often the culmination of more than a decade of education and training for advanced endoscopists and is usually their first foray into employment. Taking a practical, step-wise approach to establish a practice can optimize the chances of a successful transition, all while creating a rewarding opportunity to provide a population with necessary services, which, more than likely, were not previously being offered at your institution or in your region.

Tip 1: Understand the current landscape

When joining a hospital-employed or private practice, it is important for the advanced endoscopist to gauge the current landscape of the job, beginning with gaining an understanding of the current services provided by your gastroenterology colleagues. This includes knowing the types of advanced endoscopy services previously provided, especially if you have partners or colleagues who perform these procedures, and their prior referral patterns, either within or outside their respective group. Also, it is important to understand the services that are provided locally at other institutions. This will allow you to develop a niche of the types of services you can provide that are not available in the current practice set-up.

Tip 2: Connect with peers, interspecialty collaborators, and referring physicians

It is important that you connect with your GI colleagues once you start a new job. This can differ in ease depending on the size of your group. For example, in a small group, it may be easier to familiarize yourself with your colleagues through regular interactions. If you are a part of a larger practice, however, it is necessary to be more proactive and set up introductory meetings/sessions. These interactions provide a great opportunity to share your goals and start building a relationship.

Efforts also should be made to reach out to primary care, hematology/oncology, surgical/radiation oncology, general surgery, and interventional radiology physicians, as these are the specialists with whom an advanced endoscopist typically has the most interaction. The relationship with these colleagues is bidirectional, as the majority of our patients need multidisciplinary decision-making and care. For example, the first time you speak to the colorectal surgeon at your institution should not be in the middle of a complication. The purpose of these introductions should not be solely to inform them of the services you are offering but to start developing a relationship in a true sense, because eventually those relationships will transform into excellent patient care.

Tip 3: Communication

Communication is a key principle in building a practice. Referring physicians often entrust you with managing a part of their patient’s medical problems. Patient/procedure outcomes should be relayed promptly to referring physicians, as this not only helps build the trust of the referring physician, but also enhances the patient’s trust in the health system, knowing that all physicians are communicating with the common goal of improving the patient’s disease course.

Communication with the referring physician is important not only after a procedure but also before it. Know that a consult is an “ask for help.” For example, even if you are not the correct specialist for a referral (for example, an inflammatory bowel disease patient was sent to an advanced endoscopist), it is good practice to take ownership of the patient and forward that person to the appropriate colleague.
 

Tip 4: Build a local reputation

Building upon this, it is also important to connect with other GI groups in the community, regardless of whether they have their own affiliated advanced endoscopists. This helps determine the advanced endoscopy services being offered regionally, which will further allow an understanding of the unmet needs of the region. In addition, building a relationship with local advanced endoscopists in the region can help establish a collaborative relationship going forward, rather than a contentious/competitive dynamic.

Tip 5: Advance your skills

As advanced endoscopy fellows are aware, completing an advanced endoscopy fellowship allows for building a strong foundation of skills, which will continue to refine and grow as you advance in your career.

Depending on your skill-set and training, the first year should focus on developing and establishing “your style” (since the training is tailored to follow the practice patterns of your mentors). The first few months are good to focus on refining endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic mucosal resection, and luminal stenting techniques. As you start to build a reputation of being “safe, thoughtful, and skilled” and depending on your interests and goals, continued engagement in the advanced endoscopy community to understand new technologies/procedures is helpful. It is important to remember that new skills and procedures can be introduced in your practice, but this should be done in a timely and patient manner. You should appropriately educate and train yourself for such procedures through educational conferences/courses, shadowing and routine engagement with mentors, and collaboration with industry partners.
 

Tip 6: Team building

From a procedural standpoint, certain staff members should be recognized to be part of or lead an “advanced endoscopy team,” with a goal of dedicated exposure to a high volume of complex procedures. This builds camaraderie and trust within the team of advanced endoscopy nurses and technicians going forward, which is crucial to introducing and building a high-complexity procedural service. This is also an excellent opportunity to partner with our industry colleagues to ensure that they can train your team on the use of novel devices.

Tip 7: Offering new services to your patients

Advanced endoscopy is a rapidly evolving specialty, and new procedures, technology, and devices are allowing us to provide minimally invasive options to our patients. It is important that prior to introducing new services and programs, your hospital/practice administration should be informed about any such plans. Also, all potential collaborating services (surgery, interventional radiology, etc.) should be part of the decision-making to ensure patients receive the best possible multidisciplinary care.

Tip 8: Mentorship and peer-mentorship

Establishing a network of regional and national advanced endoscopy colleagues and mentors is critical. This may be harder to develop in community-based and private practice, where one may feel that they are on an “island.” Engagement with national organizations, use of social media, and other avenues are excellent ways to build this network. Advanced endoscopic procedures also are associated with higher rates of adverse events, so having a peer-support group to provide emotional and moral support when these adverse events occur also is important. Such a network also includes those collaborating specialties to which you would refer (surgical oncology, thoracic surgery, etc.). Being involved in local tumor boards and “gut clubs” is another way of remaining engaged and not feeling isolated.

Tip 9: Have fun

Advanced endoscopy can be busy, as well as physically and mentally exhausting. It is important to maintain a good work-life balance. In addition, planning scheduled retreats or social events with your advanced endoscopy team (nurses, technicians, schedulers, colleagues) is important not only to show appreciation, but also to help build camaraderie and develop relationships.

Tip 10: Remember your ‘why’

Often times, there can be stressors associated with building a practice and increasing your volume, therefore, it is always important to remember why you became a medical professional and advanced endoscopist. This will get you through the days where you had a complication or when things didn’t go as planned.
 

Conclusion

Lastly, it is important to keep revisiting your skill sets and practice and evaluate what is working well and what can be improved. To all the advanced endoscopists starting their careers: Be patient and have a positive attitude! The leaders in our field did not become so overnight, and an advanced endoscopy–based career resembles a marathon rather than a sprint. Mistakes during procedures and practice building can be made, but how you grow and learn from those mistakes is what determines how likely you are to succeed going forward. Respect and acknowledge your staff, your collaborating physicians, and mentors. It takes time and effort to develop an advanced endoscopy practice. Being proud of your achievements and promoting procedural and patient care advances that you have made are beneficial and encouraged. We are fortunate to be in an ever-evolving specialty, and it is an exciting time to be practicing advanced endoscopy. Good luck!

Dr. Soudagar is a gastroenterologist at Northwestern Medical Group, Lake Forest, Ill. Dr. Bilal, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, is an advanced endoscopist and gastroenterologist at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Establishing an advanced endoscopy practice can appear challenging and overwhelming. It is often the culmination of more than a decade of education and training for advanced endoscopists and is usually their first foray into employment. Taking a practical, step-wise approach to establish a practice can optimize the chances of a successful transition, all while creating a rewarding opportunity to provide a population with necessary services, which, more than likely, were not previously being offered at your institution or in your region.

Tip 1: Understand the current landscape

When joining a hospital-employed or private practice, it is important for the advanced endoscopist to gauge the current landscape of the job, beginning with gaining an understanding of the current services provided by your gastroenterology colleagues. This includes knowing the types of advanced endoscopy services previously provided, especially if you have partners or colleagues who perform these procedures, and their prior referral patterns, either within or outside their respective group. Also, it is important to understand the services that are provided locally at other institutions. This will allow you to develop a niche of the types of services you can provide that are not available in the current practice set-up.

Tip 2: Connect with peers, interspecialty collaborators, and referring physicians

It is important that you connect with your GI colleagues once you start a new job. This can differ in ease depending on the size of your group. For example, in a small group, it may be easier to familiarize yourself with your colleagues through regular interactions. If you are a part of a larger practice, however, it is necessary to be more proactive and set up introductory meetings/sessions. These interactions provide a great opportunity to share your goals and start building a relationship.

Efforts also should be made to reach out to primary care, hematology/oncology, surgical/radiation oncology, general surgery, and interventional radiology physicians, as these are the specialists with whom an advanced endoscopist typically has the most interaction. The relationship with these colleagues is bidirectional, as the majority of our patients need multidisciplinary decision-making and care. For example, the first time you speak to the colorectal surgeon at your institution should not be in the middle of a complication. The purpose of these introductions should not be solely to inform them of the services you are offering but to start developing a relationship in a true sense, because eventually those relationships will transform into excellent patient care.

Tip 3: Communication

Communication is a key principle in building a practice. Referring physicians often entrust you with managing a part of their patient’s medical problems. Patient/procedure outcomes should be relayed promptly to referring physicians, as this not only helps build the trust of the referring physician, but also enhances the patient’s trust in the health system, knowing that all physicians are communicating with the common goal of improving the patient’s disease course.

Communication with the referring physician is important not only after a procedure but also before it. Know that a consult is an “ask for help.” For example, even if you are not the correct specialist for a referral (for example, an inflammatory bowel disease patient was sent to an advanced endoscopist), it is good practice to take ownership of the patient and forward that person to the appropriate colleague.
 

Tip 4: Build a local reputation

Building upon this, it is also important to connect with other GI groups in the community, regardless of whether they have their own affiliated advanced endoscopists. This helps determine the advanced endoscopy services being offered regionally, which will further allow an understanding of the unmet needs of the region. In addition, building a relationship with local advanced endoscopists in the region can help establish a collaborative relationship going forward, rather than a contentious/competitive dynamic.

Tip 5: Advance your skills

As advanced endoscopy fellows are aware, completing an advanced endoscopy fellowship allows for building a strong foundation of skills, which will continue to refine and grow as you advance in your career.

Depending on your skill-set and training, the first year should focus on developing and establishing “your style” (since the training is tailored to follow the practice patterns of your mentors). The first few months are good to focus on refining endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic mucosal resection, and luminal stenting techniques. As you start to build a reputation of being “safe, thoughtful, and skilled” and depending on your interests and goals, continued engagement in the advanced endoscopy community to understand new technologies/procedures is helpful. It is important to remember that new skills and procedures can be introduced in your practice, but this should be done in a timely and patient manner. You should appropriately educate and train yourself for such procedures through educational conferences/courses, shadowing and routine engagement with mentors, and collaboration with industry partners.
 

Tip 6: Team building

From a procedural standpoint, certain staff members should be recognized to be part of or lead an “advanced endoscopy team,” with a goal of dedicated exposure to a high volume of complex procedures. This builds camaraderie and trust within the team of advanced endoscopy nurses and technicians going forward, which is crucial to introducing and building a high-complexity procedural service. This is also an excellent opportunity to partner with our industry colleagues to ensure that they can train your team on the use of novel devices.

Tip 7: Offering new services to your patients

Advanced endoscopy is a rapidly evolving specialty, and new procedures, technology, and devices are allowing us to provide minimally invasive options to our patients. It is important that prior to introducing new services and programs, your hospital/practice administration should be informed about any such plans. Also, all potential collaborating services (surgery, interventional radiology, etc.) should be part of the decision-making to ensure patients receive the best possible multidisciplinary care.

Tip 8: Mentorship and peer-mentorship

Establishing a network of regional and national advanced endoscopy colleagues and mentors is critical. This may be harder to develop in community-based and private practice, where one may feel that they are on an “island.” Engagement with national organizations, use of social media, and other avenues are excellent ways to build this network. Advanced endoscopic procedures also are associated with higher rates of adverse events, so having a peer-support group to provide emotional and moral support when these adverse events occur also is important. Such a network also includes those collaborating specialties to which you would refer (surgical oncology, thoracic surgery, etc.). Being involved in local tumor boards and “gut clubs” is another way of remaining engaged and not feeling isolated.

Tip 9: Have fun

Advanced endoscopy can be busy, as well as physically and mentally exhausting. It is important to maintain a good work-life balance. In addition, planning scheduled retreats or social events with your advanced endoscopy team (nurses, technicians, schedulers, colleagues) is important not only to show appreciation, but also to help build camaraderie and develop relationships.

Tip 10: Remember your ‘why’

Often times, there can be stressors associated with building a practice and increasing your volume, therefore, it is always important to remember why you became a medical professional and advanced endoscopist. This will get you through the days where you had a complication or when things didn’t go as planned.
 

Conclusion

Lastly, it is important to keep revisiting your skill sets and practice and evaluate what is working well and what can be improved. To all the advanced endoscopists starting their careers: Be patient and have a positive attitude! The leaders in our field did not become so overnight, and an advanced endoscopy–based career resembles a marathon rather than a sprint. Mistakes during procedures and practice building can be made, but how you grow and learn from those mistakes is what determines how likely you are to succeed going forward. Respect and acknowledge your staff, your collaborating physicians, and mentors. It takes time and effort to develop an advanced endoscopy practice. Being proud of your achievements and promoting procedural and patient care advances that you have made are beneficial and encouraged. We are fortunate to be in an ever-evolving specialty, and it is an exciting time to be practicing advanced endoscopy. Good luck!

Dr. Soudagar is a gastroenterologist at Northwestern Medical Group, Lake Forest, Ill. Dr. Bilal, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, is an advanced endoscopist and gastroenterologist at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Establishing an advanced endoscopy practice can appear challenging and overwhelming. It is often the culmination of more than a decade of education and training for advanced endoscopists and is usually their first foray into employment. Taking a practical, step-wise approach to establish a practice can optimize the chances of a successful transition, all while creating a rewarding opportunity to provide a population with necessary services, which, more than likely, were not previously being offered at your institution or in your region.

Tip 1: Understand the current landscape

When joining a hospital-employed or private practice, it is important for the advanced endoscopist to gauge the current landscape of the job, beginning with gaining an understanding of the current services provided by your gastroenterology colleagues. This includes knowing the types of advanced endoscopy services previously provided, especially if you have partners or colleagues who perform these procedures, and their prior referral patterns, either within or outside their respective group. Also, it is important to understand the services that are provided locally at other institutions. This will allow you to develop a niche of the types of services you can provide that are not available in the current practice set-up.

Tip 2: Connect with peers, interspecialty collaborators, and referring physicians

It is important that you connect with your GI colleagues once you start a new job. This can differ in ease depending on the size of your group. For example, in a small group, it may be easier to familiarize yourself with your colleagues through regular interactions. If you are a part of a larger practice, however, it is necessary to be more proactive and set up introductory meetings/sessions. These interactions provide a great opportunity to share your goals and start building a relationship.

Efforts also should be made to reach out to primary care, hematology/oncology, surgical/radiation oncology, general surgery, and interventional radiology physicians, as these are the specialists with whom an advanced endoscopist typically has the most interaction. The relationship with these colleagues is bidirectional, as the majority of our patients need multidisciplinary decision-making and care. For example, the first time you speak to the colorectal surgeon at your institution should not be in the middle of a complication. The purpose of these introductions should not be solely to inform them of the services you are offering but to start developing a relationship in a true sense, because eventually those relationships will transform into excellent patient care.

Tip 3: Communication

Communication is a key principle in building a practice. Referring physicians often entrust you with managing a part of their patient’s medical problems. Patient/procedure outcomes should be relayed promptly to referring physicians, as this not only helps build the trust of the referring physician, but also enhances the patient’s trust in the health system, knowing that all physicians are communicating with the common goal of improving the patient’s disease course.

Communication with the referring physician is important not only after a procedure but also before it. Know that a consult is an “ask for help.” For example, even if you are not the correct specialist for a referral (for example, an inflammatory bowel disease patient was sent to an advanced endoscopist), it is good practice to take ownership of the patient and forward that person to the appropriate colleague.
 

Tip 4: Build a local reputation

Building upon this, it is also important to connect with other GI groups in the community, regardless of whether they have their own affiliated advanced endoscopists. This helps determine the advanced endoscopy services being offered regionally, which will further allow an understanding of the unmet needs of the region. In addition, building a relationship with local advanced endoscopists in the region can help establish a collaborative relationship going forward, rather than a contentious/competitive dynamic.

Tip 5: Advance your skills

As advanced endoscopy fellows are aware, completing an advanced endoscopy fellowship allows for building a strong foundation of skills, which will continue to refine and grow as you advance in your career.

Depending on your skill-set and training, the first year should focus on developing and establishing “your style” (since the training is tailored to follow the practice patterns of your mentors). The first few months are good to focus on refining endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic mucosal resection, and luminal stenting techniques. As you start to build a reputation of being “safe, thoughtful, and skilled” and depending on your interests and goals, continued engagement in the advanced endoscopy community to understand new technologies/procedures is helpful. It is important to remember that new skills and procedures can be introduced in your practice, but this should be done in a timely and patient manner. You should appropriately educate and train yourself for such procedures through educational conferences/courses, shadowing and routine engagement with mentors, and collaboration with industry partners.
 

Tip 6: Team building

From a procedural standpoint, certain staff members should be recognized to be part of or lead an “advanced endoscopy team,” with a goal of dedicated exposure to a high volume of complex procedures. This builds camaraderie and trust within the team of advanced endoscopy nurses and technicians going forward, which is crucial to introducing and building a high-complexity procedural service. This is also an excellent opportunity to partner with our industry colleagues to ensure that they can train your team on the use of novel devices.

Tip 7: Offering new services to your patients

Advanced endoscopy is a rapidly evolving specialty, and new procedures, technology, and devices are allowing us to provide minimally invasive options to our patients. It is important that prior to introducing new services and programs, your hospital/practice administration should be informed about any such plans. Also, all potential collaborating services (surgery, interventional radiology, etc.) should be part of the decision-making to ensure patients receive the best possible multidisciplinary care.

Tip 8: Mentorship and peer-mentorship

Establishing a network of regional and national advanced endoscopy colleagues and mentors is critical. This may be harder to develop in community-based and private practice, where one may feel that they are on an “island.” Engagement with national organizations, use of social media, and other avenues are excellent ways to build this network. Advanced endoscopic procedures also are associated with higher rates of adverse events, so having a peer-support group to provide emotional and moral support when these adverse events occur also is important. Such a network also includes those collaborating specialties to which you would refer (surgical oncology, thoracic surgery, etc.). Being involved in local tumor boards and “gut clubs” is another way of remaining engaged and not feeling isolated.

Tip 9: Have fun

Advanced endoscopy can be busy, as well as physically and mentally exhausting. It is important to maintain a good work-life balance. In addition, planning scheduled retreats or social events with your advanced endoscopy team (nurses, technicians, schedulers, colleagues) is important not only to show appreciation, but also to help build camaraderie and develop relationships.

Tip 10: Remember your ‘why’

Often times, there can be stressors associated with building a practice and increasing your volume, therefore, it is always important to remember why you became a medical professional and advanced endoscopist. This will get you through the days where you had a complication or when things didn’t go as planned.
 

Conclusion

Lastly, it is important to keep revisiting your skill sets and practice and evaluate what is working well and what can be improved. To all the advanced endoscopists starting their careers: Be patient and have a positive attitude! The leaders in our field did not become so overnight, and an advanced endoscopy–based career resembles a marathon rather than a sprint. Mistakes during procedures and practice building can be made, but how you grow and learn from those mistakes is what determines how likely you are to succeed going forward. Respect and acknowledge your staff, your collaborating physicians, and mentors. It takes time and effort to develop an advanced endoscopy practice. Being proud of your achievements and promoting procedural and patient care advances that you have made are beneficial and encouraged. We are fortunate to be in an ever-evolving specialty, and it is an exciting time to be practicing advanced endoscopy. Good luck!

Dr. Soudagar is a gastroenterologist at Northwestern Medical Group, Lake Forest, Ill. Dr. Bilal, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, is an advanced endoscopist and gastroenterologist at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. The authors have no conflicts of interest.